Will Chris Koster Appeal CAFO Ruling?

The Joplin Globe describes it as "CAFO issue at Crossroad". You may remember Circuit Judge Joyce's Ruling that NO CAFOs can be constructed within 2 miles of state parks and hsitoric sites. You may remember that former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt's administration filed an appeal of Judge Joyce's ruling. The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals has scheduled a hearing, October 28, 2009. Missouri's new Attorney's General, Chris Koster, will have to decide whether to puruse the appeal, filed by his predessesor, or let Judge Joyce's ruling stand. The article states that agricultural interests like Missouru Farm Bureau and the Missouri Agribusiness Association want the appeal heard. Environmental groups like The Sierra Club, the Roaring river Parks Alliance, the Friends of Arrow Rock and the Missouri Parks Association want the State of Missouri to drop the appeal. The Joplin Globe, September 27, 2009

Previous posts on Judge Joyce's ruling: Update on Judge Joyce Ruling, Appeal Hearing, CAFOs vs Judge Joyce .

Gov. Jay Nixon Suspends Department of Natural Resources Director

The Columbia Tribune reported today that Gov. Jay Nixon suspended Department of Natural Resources Director, Mark Templeton, for two weeks without pay after he provided false information to the governor. Nixon added later, "I'm angrier than words can describe."

Nixon's action came two days after he incorrectly told reporters that state beaches at the Lake of the Ozarks had been closed from May 18 to June 11 because of high pollution levels. The beaches, however, had not been closed. And on Wednesday, Nixon said his Department of Natural Resources director Mark Templeton had given him the false information about the closings.

More links on Lake of the Ozarks E. coli sampling results:
E.coli report reached governor's staff Springfield News Leader, 10/01/2009

Transcript of what Gov. Nixon said about DNR failure to close beaches Springfield News Leader, 09/30/2009

Fact-checking Nixon's claims about beach closings at Lake of the Ozarks Springfield News Leader, 09/29/2009

Governor: Report on E.coli not passed on Springfield News Leader, 09/29/2009

Transition at DNR slowed E. coli results Springfield News Leader, 09/28/2009

Ex-official: E. coli results known Springfield News Leader, 09/25/2009

DPS attorney requested, got surveillance tapes Springfield News Leader, 09/25/2009

Nixon aide knew about E. coli results in May, ex-DNR employee says Springfield News Leader, 09/24/2009

Plan targets polluters at Lake of the Ozarks Springfield News Leader, 09/24/2009

Update on Judge Patricia Joyce Ruling

According to Columbia Daily Tribune, Attorney General Chris Koster says the administration of Gov. Jay Nixon prefers to drop the appeal of a judge’s decision prohibiting the location of concentrated animal feeding operations near state parks and historic sites.


Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce ruled last year that a 4,800-head hog farm could not be located within two miles of the historic village of Arrow Rock. The ruling came in response to a suit filed by the Missouri Parks Association against the Department of Natural Resources, which had issued a permit for the operation. Although the permit expired and the large hog farm was not built, the administration of Gov. Matt Blunt appealed the decision to an appeals court in Kansas City. Environmental groups have asked the Nixon administration to drop it.

In our view: Residents, judge perform DNR’s duty The Joplin Globe 08/26/2008

DNR says judicial ruling stops CAFO construction in Missouri w/ Cole County Circuit Court ruling The Joplin Globe, 08/26/2008

Challenge expected soon to Missouri CAFO ruling The Joplin Globe, 09/23/2008

DNR chose "impact on tourism " over Health and Safety in May

The Kansas City Star reported, Thursday, July 16, 2009, Missouri agency withheld report of E. coli reaching unsafe levels in Lake of the Ozarks. State officials sat for four weeks on a report that showed E. coli was above safe levels in the Lake of the Ozarks around Memorial Day. A national clean-water expert and author said the report should have been released about May 28 when the danger was imminent, not June 26, when it was finally released with lower June samples. The state standard for E. coli is 126 colonies per 100 milliliters of water. More than half of the 60 samples taken May 26 exceeded that standard, state records show. At least two samples were 19 times above the standard.

Many Missouri lakes are not monitored for E. coli. But Lake of the Ozarks is in an unusual situation. As the result of a lawsuit, Ameren Corp. agreed in 2007 to provide $15,000 a year for five years to monitor for E. coli as part of a state settlement over a dam failure. The Lake of the Ozarks Watershed Alliance, manned by volunteers with oversight by DNR employees, collects samples six times a year during the swimming season. For the last two years, the DNR has released the monitoring report promptly, as soon as a laboratory has analyzed the samples. The alliance puts the report on its Web site and includes a color map of where the samples were taken. But in May, after the samples were collected and the laboratory analyzed them, the DNR did not release the report.

The Joplin Globe Editorial, Friday, July 17, 2009 said it all, Deceiving the Public. What happened to the greater good of the people? We don’t think posting no swimming signs for a few weeks would have created a panic. The warnings should have explained that heavy rains in May washed hazardous bacteria into the lake. Donna Swall, director of a group that did sampling on May 26, begged state officials to release the report, according to the Star. Instead, the DNR traded public trust for tourism dollars. Withholding this type of information is wrong, plain and simple, and the public has a right to demand accountability from the DNR. The state agency, at the very least, violated the state’s open-records law when it refused to divulge the report to the public. The mission of the DNR is to protect our water quality, not cover up its contamination.

July 23, 2009, The Kansas City Star reported "Senate committee to probe delayed E. coli report". Sen. Brad Lager, a Savannah Republican and chairman of the Senate standing committee on environment, said Thursday he will begin a thorough review of why the Missouri Department of Natural Resources did not release the report for more than a month. Top DNR officials told The Star they withheld the report because of concerns over the impact on tourism and over creating a public panic.

Attorney General Chris Koster has announced he will investigate whether DNR violated the Missouri Sunshine Law when it did not release the report. The stories have created a public outcry. The National Sierra Club Water Sentinels Program this week called for DNR Director Mark Templeton to be fired and reprimands of two other DNR employees. “DNR stands for Do Not Release,” said Scott Dye, national program director.

Cedar County MO couple wins $1.1 million in Nuisance Suit

The Joplin Globe reports in today's paper that Ed and Ruth McEowen (plaintiffs) settled with Missouri Farmers Association (MFA), Missouri Farm Bureau, North View Swine Co., Tri County Swine and Douglas and Edith Mullings for $1.1 Million. The McEowens live in Jeroco Springs (Cedar County), MO. and had filed a nuisance suit against the defendants. The article quotes McEowen's attorney, Charlie Speer, "This is basically an atomic bomb when it comes to this type of case. There are over 400 nuisance cases like this one pending in Missouri, including 50 in Southwest Missouri. This $1.1 Million settlement sets the bar for future settlements." The settlement prevents the hog farm from any future odor releases that might negatively impact the McEowens.

Citizens for Environmental Safety, Purcell, (Jasper Co.) MO

The Carthage Press, Friday, Februuary 27, 2009, reported that Republic Financial Corporation-Denver, has abandoned plans to build a landfill in Purcell (Jasper Co.) Missouri. The 640 acre site is/was at the corner of Country Road 210 and Baseline. "The company announced on Feb. 14 that it planned to sell the land and attach a covenant to the deed that it could never be used as a landfill." Citizens for Environmental Saftey (CES) "said it opposed the landfill because the land was the headwaters to Slater Branch, a creek that ran directly into the North Fork of the Spring River, then into the Spring River itself. They feared pollution from the landfill could spread into Spring River."

The CES Committee plans to "donate the information, maps and testing it had conducted and gathered to the library at Missouri Southern State University where it could be archived, protected and available for public use." Thank you and congratulations to the CES Committee, including Joe Hagen, Charimonde Hagen and Mark Russell.

Previous Environmental Battlefields of Missouri posts regarding the Purcell Landfill:
SW Regional Landfill (Google Earth) view
Who's Who on the Purcell Landfill Batlefield
Who is Running SW Regional Landfill
Public Information Session Purcell Landfill
Today's Headlines Purcell Landfill
When is a Landfill a Junkyard?
Clarification of Landfill
Can You See Though a Landfill?

Roaring River Parks Alliance vs. Ozbun CAFO - Appeal Hearing

The Joplin Globe, (01/05/2009) reports on an appeal hearing, scheduled in the case of Roaring River Parks Alliance vs. Michele and Rodney Ozbun CAFO, for 9:00am, Thursday, January 8, 2008, Room 540, Truman Building, Jefferson City, MO. The article reports that the Ozbuns will be represented by Michael Schmid, and associate in the firm of Schreimann, Rackers Francka and Blunt, Jefferson City, MO. The Roaring River Parks Alliance will be represented by John Price, law firm of Carnahan, Evans, Cantwell & Brown, Springfield, MO.

CAFO Rules

The Joplin Globe (12/07/08) reported in today's paper that new Missouri State Representative Tom Flanigan Carthage, MO (District 127), is quoted as saying he will sponsor legislation aimed at tougher state response to odor problems. Rep Flannigan was quoted in The Carthage Press (12/01/08), "the one piece of legislation I want to introduce is the reintroduction of Senate Bill 738, the original bill. It deals with companies that take animal parts and turn them into petroleum products and odor violations". The Jopin Globe article, Revision Call For No Change reports on the Missouri Air Conservation Commission's decision not to change the rules regarding odor volations in Missouri.

Lawsuit vs. Synergy LLC, KENOMA LLC, MOWAK LLC, etal

Thirty-five Barton County (MO) residents have filed suit in the Circuit Court of Barton Co., MO. against SYNERGY LLC, KENOMA LLC, Paul Stefan, Wayne Nichols, Francis Forst, T.J. Onstott, MOWAK, LLC and William Steffan. The defendants are Barton Co. CAFO owners and/or operators. The suit alleges that "The odor and toxic gases, including but not limited to hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ammonia, cause and contribute to the offensive odors that have disrupted and interfered with Plaintiff's use and quiet enjoyment of their lives, homes, and/or property."
The Joplin Globe reported today, in an article Residents File Nuisance Lawsuit Against CAFO, the background for the suit, as well as link to a copy of the Lawsuit.

Defendants:
Synergy, LLC
Kenoma, LLC
Paul Stefan, Golden City, MO.
Wayne Nichols, Golden City, MO.
Francis Forst, Lamar, MO.
T.J. Onstott, Lamar, MO.
Mowak, LLC.
William Stefan, Lockwood, MO.
Robert Rice, Lamar, MO.
Ed Onstott, Lamar, MO.
Marcel Fischbacher, Lamar, MO.
John Bauer, Lamar, MO.
Janis Bauer, Lamar, MO.
Clint Ash, Lamar, MO.

"Everyone Lives Downstream"

The Joplin Globe reported, Friday, November 14, 2008, that Tyler Swezey and Anthony Monteleone (students at Pittsburg State University) earned a first-place award from Collegiate Broadcasters Inc. for their documentary film on CAFOs. The film, "Everyone Lives Downstream" explores the concerns of some anglers and neighbors of the Cassville, MO state park who have filed a legal challenge against concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) located just a mile from the Roaring River State Park entrance. The Michelle & Rodney Ozbun CAFO houses about 65,000 chickens.

Another Barry County CAFO (Missouri)

The Joplin Globe reports Neighbors voicing opposition to proximity of planned 30,000-chicken house (Friday, October 31, 2008) on a new environmental "battlefield' in Wheaton (Barry Co., MO) regarding a 30,000 broiler chicken CAFO, being built by Wesley & Cheri Church. At issue, is the proximity of the proposed chicken CAFO to their neighbors. The newspaper article identified the affected neighbors as Lowell & Twyla McInturff, Charles & Shirley Tichenor, Doug & Deanna Hughes, and Joseph & Tempest Cooper.

Here is a Google Earth image of the area immediately north of Wheaton, MO. [click on image to get close-up view] Obviously there are other poultry houses in the area. What is at issue, is best described in this excerpt from the article, the Church's "poultry house will be 191 yards north of the Tichenor house, 162 yards from a house on the west side, 254 yards south of the McInturff house and 296 yards southwest of the Cooper house".

Once again, it is the owner's attitude that characterizes the situation,'They (Wesley & Cheri Church) noted they purchased their property without restrictions in an area that is agricultural.' It is like they are saying that it is my land and I'll do with it what I want. This is the reoccurring theme in every environmental battleground. I don't think that this attitude falls under the "good neighbor" model for sustainable agriculture.

Of interest in this article is the reference to First Financial Bank, Fayetteville, AR. as being the lender for the project. What does this say about their adherence to "good neighbor" lending practices for sustainable agriculture? The article also reports that Cheri & Wesley Church have signed on to become Simmons contract growers. Simmons agreed to the project, though the company’s Web site says it will not construct a chicken house within 1,200 feet of an existing chicken house. An exception apparently was made for the Churches: the Tichenor chicken houses are approximately 960 feet east of the location of the new chicken house. Kimmy Provost, spokeswoman for Simmons, said, “The 1,200 feet is a recommendation. It is up to the individual contract grower to abide by the laws of the state they are operating in." The article states that 'in Missouri, a poultry house cannot be constructed within 100 feet of a home or a private well, according to state regulations'.

CAFO Meeting Lamar (Barton Co.) MO. Part 2

The CAFO informational meeting was held in Lamar (Barton Co.) MO on October 14, 2008. In addition to John Ikerd, PhD, other groups that spoke or made presentations, included: Darvin Bentlage, a rural Richland Township-Barton Co. farmer; Jim Riedel and Mark Stevenson, Roaring River Parks Alliance; Kathleen Smith, Missouri Coalition for Environment and Rhonda Perry, Missouri Rural Crisis Center.

Some of the information that was disseminated in Lamar, warrants further discussion and research. Here are refences to some of the information.

1. In Barton Co. MO, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)reported that in 2002, there were 45,618 cow/calves and 150,000 hogs. In Dade Co. there were 6,500 cow/calves and 45,000 hogs. In Jasper Co. MO there were 61,531 cow/calves and 17,000 hogs.
2. The Northfork of Spring River was ranked 2nd worst in the state for agricultural non-point pollution.
3. New legislation, called EQIP was passed in November 2007. It was designed to provide subsidies: 1/3 to crop farmers, 1/3 to grazing operations, and 1/3 to animal feeding operations. Instead 40% of EQIP went to CAFOs. Put another way, 2% of farmers got 40% of the funding.
4. Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is NOT pro-active, but reactive.
5. Algae uses up Oxygen that fish need
6. 265 CAFOs in Barry Co. MO.
7. We all loose in an adversarial model of protecting Missouri's natural resources.
8. CAFO > 65,000, 100' setback from stream or well -and- 1,000' setback from residence. However, CAFO < 65,000, no permit reqquired or setback regulations.
9. Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission
10. Clean Water Act 40 CFR Part 131

11. Class 1A hogs CAFO >17,500; 1B 7,500-17,499; 1C 2500-7,499 and Class II hog operation 750-2499.
12. NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (DNR537 CAFO)
13. There are 150,000 unclassified streams. There are 25,000 classified streams. 82% of discharge permits are on unclassified streams. Only narrative criteria apply to unclassified streams.
14. TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load)
15. BMP (Best Management Practices)
16. UAA (Use Attainability Analysis)
17. Anti degradation and sustainability
18. Good land stewardship. Good neighbors. Good practices.
19. "Remember, we all live downstream and upstream."
20. Family farm vs. Industrial operations (CAFO)

21. It matters who is raising livestock. 1.5 to 3 jobs lost in corporate agriculture.
22. In Missouri the number of hog farmers has decreased from 19,000 to 2,000. The # of hogs have remained constant: 2,800,000. However the pork price has gone up 64% and the profit has decreased 40%.
23. CAFO's are a vertical integration model; they control the marketplace; and they depend on subsidies.
24. EQIP included a $50,000 cap for cost sharing. Nationally, $35 million went to industrial livestock operations. In Missouri, NRCS paid CAFO operators $5 million to move their litter waste somewhere else.
25. Current state standards are not sufficient.
26. 4,000 hogs produce as much waste as a human population of 16,000.
27. The last 4-6 years, the Missouri legislature (supported by Missouri Farm Bureau) has treid to take away local control of CAFOs.
28. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) is only regulating CAFOs that are not self contained.
29. EQIP, was intended for real conservation practices, NOT moving liter.
30. Need to address accumulative impact of CAFOs.
31. Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia

CAFO Meeting Lamar (Barton Co.) MO. Part 1

The Joplin Globe (10/16/2008) reported, "CAFO Foes Rally Forces". Speakers were critical of what they said is the inability of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to protect the state’s natural resources from the manure associated with factory farms. They said the DNR, which is charged with permitting and regulating the state’s largest CAFOs, is much too cozy with corporate agriculture. They said the department should be doing more to prevent pollution through aggressive enforcement instead of responding to it at taxpayer expense after the damage already has taken place.

Mike Holzknecht, a resident of the Stockton area, said he attended the meeting to hear what people were saying about CAFOs. “What impressed me was that the group who came to Lamar was from all over Missouri,” he said. “They came in defense of our family farms, homes and our rural way of life. These are true American patriots. “I hope all of our neighbors out here in the country will listen to these courageous family farmers before it is too late, and they lose everything they’ve worked for their entire lives — the value of their home and their family’s freedom to enjoy it.”

The Joplin Globe article did not mention, Dr. John Ikerd's presentation. His was the most emotional, thoughtful, and inspirational of all. Some of his comments included: Rural America is being polluted and plundered. Truth with conviction. Know why you believe what you believe. It is important that rural Missouri residents reclaim their rights to self control. He said that CAFO economic promises are empty and that CAFOs are not a social or economic contributor. He challenged the group to look at academic and scientific studies. CAFOs are a broad issue with many dimensions. The science is conclusive. CAFOs are a violation of rural ethic.

He pointed out that rural America is being offered: prisons, landfills, toxic waste incinerators and CAFOs. Some feel that the "highest and best" use of rural land is a dump for other peoples waste. He stressed that CAFOs are NOT the future of American agriculture. Instead, CAFOs could be the end of American agriculture. Dr. Ikerd said that there is a correlation between CAFOs and human health risks. He said that we must support the traditional Family Farm. It is ecological and economical. We have got to pursue sustainable agriculture. He pointed out that organic food was growing at a rate of 20% annually.

He emphasized that CAFOs are degrading our most valuable asset. We must step up to regain "self determination" and "self control". There is no future in prisons, landfills and CAFOs. We deserve something better. Begin rebuilding. Reclaim our grass roots control. Shape our own destination. John Ikerd, PhD

Russell & Steve Renner, McDonald Co. MO CAFO

Russell Renner and his son, Steve Renner have filed for Construction Permits to build a 234,000 chicken CAFO operation in McDonald Co, Missouri. According to an article in The Joplin Globe, September 14, 2008, excavation for the poultry barns started "about a week ago". The issue is whether or not construction of the CAFOs violate Cole County Circuit Court Judge Patricia Joyce's ruling, prohibiting construction of any CAFO within a 15 mile buffer of Missouri State Parks and Historic sites. In this case, the Big Sugar Creek State Park is within the 15 mile barrier of both Russell Renner and Steve Renner's CAFO projects. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is quoted as saying that "the department had not issued a construction permit for the Renner chicken houses. The Renners obtained a land-disturbance permit from the DNR’s regional office in Springfield."

Big Sugar Creek State Park [Click on Google Earth map for close up view]






Russell Renner, apparently doesn't mind taking farm subsidies, according to Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database. $17,608 for the period 2002-2004

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Environmental Quality, Issued Permit Report, dated 7/11/2008
Russell Renner, Permit No. MOR10C028, dated 7/8/2008, 5 acres, McDonald County

Steve Renner likes farm subsidies, too, according to Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database. $24,152 for the period 2001-2004.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality, Issued Permit Report, dated 6/20/2008
Steve Renner, Permit No. MOR109C09, dated 6/13/2008, McDonald County

[Click on Google Earth map for close up view] Intersection of Missouri Highway 76 and Missouri Highway 43 in upper left. Russell Renner CAFO at Bunch Rd and McMillan Rd.-and- Steve Renner CAFO on (dead end) Mitchell Lane. Both CAFOs appear to be within the 15 mile buffer zone (using Google Earth maps).

CAFO's vs Cole County Circuit Court Judge Patricia Joyce

The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, September 28, 2008 reported that Judge Joyce's Cole County Circuit Court ruling, which prohibits construction of CAFOs within 15 miles of Missouri State Parks and Historic sites, is about to be tested.

In her ruling, Judge Joyce said the construction of confined-animal feeding operations near state parks and historic sites poses an unacceptable health risk because of “odors and volatile and dangerous airborne pollutants” emitted by them. She cited reports by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to support her position.

In declaring that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) had failed to protect Missouri’s state parks and historic sites, Judge Joyce also stripped away the department’s ability to issue new CAFO permits. The judge said she was in charge of that now. But since that ruling MDNR has issued two construction permits for poultry CAFOs that opponents say might be within 15 miles of Big Sugar Creek State Park in McDonald County.

CAFO permits: Russell Renner-Anderson,(McDonald Co.) MO. 64831, and Steve Renner-Anderson, (McDonald Co.) MO 64831

Renee Bungart, spokeswoman for MDNR, said the permits were issued on Sept. 15. She provided the following statement: “The Missouri Department of Natural Resources respects the court’s authority and will take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with its recent ruling. The department is carefully reviewing each CAFO permit application prior to issuance to ensure that it will not violate the court’s ruling. When applications are believed to be outside the scope of the court’s ruling and when they meet all regulatory requirements and demonstrate that the operation will protect water quality, the department is obligated by law to issue the permit.’’

Asked specifically about the 15-mile buffer around Big Sugar Creek State Park, Bungart said in a prepared response: “The department is unable to comment further on your questions due to pending litigation.’’

Big Sugar Creek State Park

CAFO Conference, Tuesday, Oct 14, Thiebaud Auditorium, Lamar, MO.

Thiebaud Auditorium
105 E. 11th Ttreet
Lamar, MO. 64759
7:00pm, Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The Joplin Globe reported, Wednesday, September 24, 2008, that the program will begin at 7 p.m. with a showing of a documentary, “Everyone Lives Downstream.’’ The film, produced by two students at Pittsburg (Kan.) State University, depicts the impact of poultry CAFOs at Roaring River State Park. It will be followed by a report from a representative of the Roaring River Parks Alliance, which is mounting a legal fight.

Those attending will receive an update on a legal issue from a resident of Richland Township in Barton County, where voters overwhelmingly adopted measures last year to regulate hog CAFOs in the township. The vote was thrown out by a circuit judge. Residents have appealed the decision to a higher court.

Cat Logan Smith, with the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, and Rhonda Perry, with the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, also will speak. A representative of the Missouri Farmers Union also is set to speak.

The conference will continue with remarks by John Ikerd, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He will talk about the economic impact of CAFOs on family farms.

The conference will conclude with the showing of “Farming Was My Life,’’ a documentary that depicts the negative impact of factory farms on rural communities and traditional farmers.

Contact Links:
Roaring River Parks Alliance
Missouri Coalition of the the Environment
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
John Ikerd, PhD. University of Missouri-Columbia
Missouri Farmers Union

"Farming Was My Life", produced by Holly Hobbs
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

"Everyone Lives Downstream", produced by Tyler Swezey and Anthony Monteleone

Residents, Judge Perform DNR's Duty

Wally Kennedy & The Joplin Globe's Editorial Board, Wednesday, August 27, 2008, reported that Presiding Judge Patricia S. Joyce, Cole County (MO) Circuit Court, ruled in favor of the Missouri Parks Association, the Village of Arrow Rock, and the Friends of Arrow Rock, in prohibiting the construction of a 4,800-head hog Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) from building within 15 miles of the National and State Historic Park. Today's Editorial said it all, "Residents, Judge Perform DNR's Duty. We want to celebrate and call it a victory. In reality, it's a tragedy....Make no mistake: Joyce's decision is a major victory for anyone who appreciates the natural beauty of the Ozarks. But the court's decision demonstrates a tragedy of tremendous proportion, because it shows that residents can not trust DNR to do its job."

Wally Kennedy's front page article, Court Ruling Halts CAFO Construction, does an excellent job characterizing the significance of Judge Joyce's ruling. Here is the link to the Case No. 07AC-CC00923, Missouri Parks Association, Village of Arrow Rock and Friends of Arrow Rock vs. Missouri Department of Natural Resources and Doyle Childers, Director; Cole County, MO. [Click on link to Missouri Case.net, pull down and click on 19th Judicial District, then under last name, type Friends of Arrow Rock]

Docket Entry: Judgment Entered
Text: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against Department of Natural Resources came before this Court for hearing on July 21, 2008. Both Plaintiffs and Defendant were represented by counsel. After reviewing the pleadings and considering the arguments of counsel, this Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and makes the rulings findings of facts and legal conclusions as outlined in the Judgment. PSJ (copies of Judgment faxed to Attorney of Record this date and certified hard copies mailed.)
Filing Party: JOYCE , PATRICIA S

Here are excerpts from The Joplin Globe article,
(1) Joyce wrote: “If the Gessling CAFO is constructed and placed in operation as planned, this will decimate and destroy an irreplaceable part of the historical heritage of this nation and this state.”
(2) The decision was hailed by opponents of a 65,600-chicken CAFO near Roaring River State Park. The Roaring River Parks Alliance has filed appeals of the permits the DNR has issued for constructing and operating the CAFO.
(3) Joyce, in her ruling, cited the Roaring River fight as a reason to block the Gessling CAFO. The state Administrative Hearing Commission, she said, entered a stay order commanding that construction not proceed on the chicken CAFO at Roaring River. The DNR, she said, “failed and refused” to honor or enforce the stay order.
(4) She said an appeal has been filed with the commission in an effort to stop construction of the Gessling CAFO. She wrote: “Even if the appeal is sustained by the commission, the plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy since the DNR has not within the past five years enforced, complied with or honored any stay order rendered by the commission.”
(5) Childers said the stay order involving the Roaring River site was not enforced because the chicken CAFO already had been built. But opponents said construction was still under way when the stay order was issued.
(6) The alliance, he said, filed the appeals to stop the chicken CAFO at Roaring River in an effort to prevent other CAFOs from being constructed there. The judge’s ruling, he said, eliminates the threat of new CAFOs being constructed near the park, one of Missouri’s top tourist destinations.
(7) The judge said the construction of CAFOs near state parks and historic sites poses an unacceptable health risk because of “odors and volatile and dangerous airborne pollutants” emitted by them. She cited reports by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to support her position.

CAFO Background on Missouri Parks (Arrow Rock, Athens, and Roaring River)
Arrow Rock State Park & Dennis Gessling
July 2007
Arrow Rock Public Information Meeting July 19 @ 5:00pm

Athens State Park & Terry Daw Farms
February 2007
Athens State Park (Clark County, MO), Terry Daw Farms, CAFO's & Cargill

Roaring RiverState Park & Michelle Ozbun
January 2007
Barry County, CAFOs and Ozbun Farms
February 2007
Citizens to Protect State Parks and Historic Sites
Barry County, CAFO's and Ozbun Farms, Part 2
March 2007
Eagle Rock Group Appealing CAFO Permit
"It's my land..." says Michelle Ozbun
Barry County, CAFO's and Ozbun Farms, Part 3
May 2007
Update on 65,600-chicken CAFO Eagle Rock, MO
August 2007
Ozbun's 65,600 chicken CAFO ON HOLD
March 2008
Ozbun CAFO hearing June 16-20, Jefferson City

CAFOs Affect Neighbor's Property

Study: CAFOs Affect Neighbor's Property, published in The Joplin Globe, May 25, 2008, describes a Barton County (MO) farmer's attempt to explain an unusually high number of twin calves with deformities in his Angus cattle herd. The rural Golden City farmer, Darvin Bentlage, says that his cattle are downstream from a hog CAFO lagoon (owned by Synergy LLC of Lamar). He wonders if waste water has made its way into a creek used by the herd with the excessive number of twins. He explained that "I know hog hormones affect cattle. We do embryo transplants. They use pig hormones to get cows to produce more eggs."
The article references the Pew Commission Report. Bob Martin, chairman of the Pew Commission is quoted as saying that the concern raised by Bentlage about his herd is justified.
The article also describes an effort on the part of Bentlage, and a neighbor, Zach McGuire, to identify the number of CAFOs in Barton County. They have counted 60-Class 2 and 11-Class 1 poultry and hog CAFOs in the eastern two-thirds of Barton County. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) webpage on CAFOs show only six. Bentlage discovered that the CAFOs are all placed next to a creek or stream. "Parking a lagoon right on a creek, well, that's just Russian roulette".

Pew Charitable Trust & Johns Hopkins: CAFOs are Health Risks:

Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production - Save This Link, this is an excellent resource.

Pew Commission Says Industrial Scale Farm Animal Production Poses “Unacceptable” Risks to Public Health, Environment (Washington, DC – April 29, 2008) "The current industrial farm animal production (IFAP) system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals themselves, according to an extensive 2½-year examination conducted by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP), in a study released today. Commissioners have determined that the negative effects of the IFAP system are too great and the scientific evidence is too strong to ignore. Significant changes must be implemented and must start now. And while some areas of animal agriculture have recognized these threats and have taken action, it is clear that the industry has a long way to go."

USA Today's article, Health Risks Outweigh Farming Cost Cuts reports that "The way America produces meat, milk and eggs is unsustainable, creates significant risks to public health from antibiotic resistance and disease, damages the environment and unnecessarily harms animals, a report released Tuesday says. Representing two years of research by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, the report suggests ways to safeguard the safety and stability of U.S. meat, milk and egg production. A joint project of the non-profit Pew Charitable Trusts and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, it focuses on problems caused by a nationwide move to large, industrial-style animal-feeding facilities." April 29, 2008

The Kansas City Star article, Report Calls ‘Factory’ Farms a Threat "Industrial farms where animals are kept tightly confined present a serious and growing threat to humans, animals and the environment, a private commission reported Tuesday. The facilities can be harmful not only to workers and neighbors but also to others because of pollution and the potential for the spread of disease, according to the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production report. “One of the most serious unintended consequences of industrial food animal production is the growing public health threat of these types of facilities,” the report said. “There is increasing urgency to chart a new course” in agriculture, which has been shifting over the last 50 years from family farms to large livestock meat producers. The report came out of a 2½-year project of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit philanthropic organization, and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health." April 29, 2008

Land Use Affects Others

In a Letter to Editor, Geoff Caldwell warns "that (building a CAFO) does still not give one a “right” to just do whatever without regard to his neighbors, the surrounding environment, and future economic impact on tourism that affects many, many more Missourians than a few self-interested landowners. If the DNR won’t do its duty, perhaps it’s time for the counties to start applying permit fees or tax levies that make it so unprofitable that rogue landowners will be forced economically to do what they should already be doing ethically". The Joplin Globe, April 2, 2008.

Oklahoma AG Files Suit to Halt Poultry Waste Disposal

The Oklahoma Attorney General, W. A. Drew Edmondson, has filed a suit to halt poultry waste disposal in the Illinois River Watershed. Citing an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to public health, the State of Oklahoma today asked a federal judge to prohibit any further land application of poultry waste in the Illinois River Watershed (IRW). Showing a “direct path from the place of poultry waste disposal to the locations...where contamination is found,” the state presented evidence that the poultry companies’ reckless waste dumping methods are contributing to high levels of bacteria in the waters of the state. “We can show that fecal bacteria in poultry waste is reaching the surface water and groundwater,” Edmondson said. “Scientists found areas where the bacterial counts in runoff water from poultry waste disposal fields were similar to those found in raw, untreated human sewage. These bacteria can cause a myriad of gastrointestinal illnesses and infections through ingestion and skin contact. We need the court to stop the dumping of waste to protect public health and the safety of the state’s water resources.”

News Release, State Seeks to Halt Litter Application

Copy of, State of Oklahoma's Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Is this a strategy that our own Attorney General, Jay Nixon, could take on?

EPA Webcast on CAFO Rulemaking

EPA is hosting a web cast (March 14, 2008, 12:00pm - 2:00pm EST) to provide additional information on the supplemental notice of proposed rule making for the CAFO NPDES program that was published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2008. Participants will be able to submit questions about the supplemental proposal to the EPA presenters during the web cast to gain a better understanding of this rule making effort. This web cast is intended to support the public comment period for this proposed rule, which closes on April 7, 2008. To register for this free web cast, please visit www.epa.gov/npdes/training

Ozbun CAFO hearing June 16-20, Jefferson City

The Appeal Hearing for the Ozbun CAFO Operating Permit (granted by MDNR on August 20, 2007 by MDNR), originally scheduled for March 10, 2008, has been rescheduled for June 16-20, 2008 in the Harry S. Truman Building (301 West High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101). The Ozbun CAFO is located within a mile of Roaring River and the Roaring River State Park (Barry County, MO).

Opponents
Roaring River Park Alliance
Local residents
Trout Fishermen
Environmentalist
Tourism Groups
Rep. Jeff Harris, D-Columbia, MO.
John Price, Atty. (Carnahan, Evans, Cantwell & Brown-Springfield)

Supporters
Michelle and Rodney Ozbun
Michael Schmid, Atty. (Schreimann, Rackers, Francka & Blunt-Jefferson City)

Missouri House Bill 1931 Initiative Petition

HB 1931 Changes the laws regarding the issuance of construction permits for concentrated animal feeding operations.
Summary of HB 1931
Text of HB 1931
Tracking HB 1931

The Joplin Globe's Wally Kennedy, Sunday, March 2, 2008, ran a cover story of CAFO issues in Southwest Missouri Wide Open for CAFOs, "Missouri bills would restrict CAFOs, subject them to local approval", and the new legislation introduced by Representative Jeff Harris, D-Columbia, HB 1931.

The article quotes rural Golden City farmers Darvin Bentlage and Zach McGuire, describing the proliferation of CAFO's around their property. It also references the controverys regarding CAFOs in close proximity to Roaring River, Arrow Rock and Battle of Athens State Parks. The article quotes Leslie Holloway, director of state and local government affairs with Missouri Farm Bureau as saying, “We are not in favor of trying to put to a vote an application for a ranch or individual family-farm operation. We think the current permitting works. Making an individual farm or ranch petition subject to a vote of residents of the county seems to be totally contrary to the whole idea of local planning.”

The Joplin Globe article also includes an interview with Francis Forest, owner of Kenoma LLC who owns CAFOs near Golden City and the Richland Township in Barton County (MO). Zach McGuire and his neighbors in Richland Township, west of Golden City, already put their CAFO question to a vote. They attempted to control CAFOs at the township level by giving the township board the authority to regulate the numbers of animals in a CAFO. The board unanimously voted to place the zoning issue on the ballot last fall. It was approved in a record turnout of 206 voters in the township. It was endorsed by 81 percent of the voters. An injunction was filed by the board to stop construction of the hog CAFOs by Synergy LLC and Kenoma LLC, near the village of Kenoma, which locals now refer to as “Pig Town.”
Richland Township vs. KENOMA Farms & 2400 hogs
Richland Township vs. KENOMA LLC, Part II

Darvin Bentlage is quoted as saying, “Farmers around here know they are stewards of the soil, the land and the water. They know they have to preserve it for the next generation. If 80 percent of your neighbors tell you don’t do it, you don’t do it. You respect your neighbors. That’s what real family farmers do.”

To me that pretty well describes the difference between a CAFO and a family farmer. Don't you agree?

Red Flags Around CAFOs

Kaye Smith, a member of the Roaring River Parks Alliance had her essay published in The Joplin Globe, Red Flags Around CAFOs. She ask the question, When was the Department of Natural Resources put in charge of protecting our state’s economy? The word economy does not appear in their mission statement. They are charged to protect Missouri’s land, air and water resources and work to “preserve the state’s historic and natural heritage through state parks and historic sites.”

Somewhere along the line, this job has taken a back seat in the rush to build as many concentrated animal-feeding operations as our state will hold, including the one that has caused the recent ruckus — next door to Roaring River State Park. That’s the same park our DNR is pledged to protect.

The Roaring River Parks Alliance needs and deserves our support and encouragement. Contributions can be made to: Roaring River Parks Alliance, c/o Security Bank of Southwest Missouri, P.O. Box 606, Cassville, MO 65625.

Give CAFOs the Boot

Today's The Joplin Globe OPED, In Our View is titled Give CAFOs the Boot. One can’t wander too far around Southwest Missouri before discovering that factory farms have overplayed their hand at the expense of neighbors’ property values, our environment and quality of life.

(Missouri) House Bill 909, meanwhile, would prohibit CAFOs near state parks and historic sites by setting up a five-mile buffer. Arrow Rock and the Battle of Athens state historic sites already are threatened by hog CAFOs, and a 65,600 chicken CAFO already is operating not far from Roaring River State Park.

Other states have moved to protect their crown jewels — Oklahoma has 3-mile buffer around state parks for hog farms, for example. California put a 2.5-mile collar around one of its historic sites and some Indiana legislators want to keep CAFOs at least one mile from all schools, hospitals and daycare centers. That puts CAFOs in the same lineup as drug dealers and child molesters, by the way.

In point of fact, we think the time has come for a moratorium on all CAFOs in Missouri. Until then, we'll win the ground where we can.

MDNR's CAFO Regulations Need Updated

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) just issued a press release, Department To Advise Clean Water Commission: Rule Needed To Meet EPA Deadline On Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources will advise the Clean Water Commission at its next meeting that regulation changes are needed quickly to avoid U.S. Environmental Protection Agency objections to permits issued to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. The EPA's 2003 CAFO final rule is more stringent than current Missouri regulations. Missouri has until February 2009 to amend its regulations or face objections from the federal agency to new permits.

MDNR has established a CAFO Rule Workgroup consisting of a variety of interested parties, including environmental organizations. The department has met with the stakeholders and reviewed the draft amendment to be presented to the Clean Water Commission. The department will continue to hold workgroup meetings to discuss current and future rulemakings.

Air Conservation Commission

The Joplin Globe, Febuary 7, 2008, reported that the Air Quality Commission discussion included a proposal that would lower the threshhold to a 4-to-1 ratio, triggering additional state oversite, but odors would have to register 7-to-1 or above to trigger a violation. The Attorney General's office recommended lowering the state's air dilution standard to 2-to-1 from 7-to-1, along with a technology-based approach. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) proposed a new protocol that measures intensity, rather than just checking to see if it reaches the 7-to-1 ratio.

Here is the Odor Workgroup Report to the Missouri Air Conservation Commission, dated July 2007.

Ozbun's 65,600 chicken CAFO ON HOLD

The Kansas City Star reports that on July 25, the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission issued a stay, requested by project opponents, based on an initial determination that a waiver for setbacks, obtained by Ozbuns from a neighbor, was not valid. The commission set another hearing for January 7-11, 2008. The construction delay could threaten owner Michelle Ozbun’s $1 million financing loan, and failure to obtain a properly signed waiver from the neighbor might prompt the Department of Natural Resources to reconsider issuing the permit, Missouri Administrative Hearing Commissioner John Kopp said.

Richland Township vs. KENOMA LLC, Part II

The Lamar Democrat reports that, the dispute between the Richland Township Board and Kenoma LLC entered Barton County Circuit Court, Monday, July 9, 2007, as the board filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief. Kenoma LLC is in the process of constructing a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) on Southeast 60th Road but has not reached the point of installing concrete structures. The township board alleges the intended project of Kenoma LLC is in violation of provisions of Section 5 of the township’s planning and zoning handbook, adopted April 30, 2007 and amended May 21, 2007.

During the hearing before Circuit Judge James Bickel, Kenoma LLC contended that Missouri law prohibits townships from regulating farm buildings or farm structures. A case from Putnam County ending in the Missouri Supreme Court was cited in which finishing buildings and livestock sewage lagoons were defined as farm structures. Richland Township is represented by attorney John Price of Springfield. Kenoma LLC’s legal counsel is Robert Brundage of Jefferson City. Judge Bickel took the case under advisement and indicated that a decision on issuing a temporary restraining order may be expected by Wednesday, July 11. The court set August 1 for a hearing on a petition for a preliminary injunction.

Arrow Rock Public Information Meeting July 19 @ 5:00pm

The Columbia Tribune, Sunday, July 1, reported that CAFO debates prompt agency to call meeting. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has scheduled a July 19 meeting in the cafeteria of Marshall High School. The meeting would begin at 5 p.m., when invited organizations such as the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services will staff information booths, said MDNR spokeswoman Renee Bungart. At 6:30, MDNR representatives will give a short presentation that gives an overview of how CAFOs work and how Dennis Gessling has proposed to operate his," she said. Dennis Gessling’s filed his CAFO application in January 2007 to construct a 4,800-head hog farm, in close proximity to Arrow Rock, a national historic landmark. Department representatives will be available to answer questions until 8 p.m. that night, according to a news release.

MDNR News Release No. 276, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES HOSTS PUBLIC MEETING FOR GESSLING PERMIT JULY 19 IN MARSHALL

Richland Township vs. KENOMA Farms & 2400 hogs

Raising a Stink is the headline in The Joplin Globe,Sunday, June 10, 2007, describing the probable litigation between Richland Township (Barton County, MO) and KENOMA LLC, owned by Francis Forst. In April 2007, Richland Township voters overwhelmingly approved new zoning regulations (81% YES). the new zoning regulations limit the number of hogs allowed to 800 head for 160 acres. KENOMA's plans for a 2400 head operation on 11 acres, don't quite adhere to the new zoning regulations. Apparently, KENOMA originally submitted to Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) an application, on March 1, 2007 for 4800 hogs on the 11 acre tract. MDNR told KENOMA that they (MDNR) do not regulate operations less that 2500 head, and KENOMA withdrew their application. Is it any coincidence that KENOMA now plans to build a 2400 head operation?
Members of the Richland Township Planning and Zoning board (Greg Harris-Chairman, Zach McGuire, Doug Haile and Tim Isenmann)along with their attorney, John Price (Springfield, MO) are discussing strategies to enforce the zoning restriction, including litigation. Curiously, Barton County Commissioner, Dennis Wilson, appears to be supporting KENOMA Farms, by quoting the Premium Standard Farms vs Lincoln Township of Putnam County case, as well as being quoted as saying, "You can have as many rights as you have dollars. You need the money or a really loud voice. If (the township) wants to do it and they've got the money, that's fine. It's just, how far do they really want to push this?"

The Lamar Democrat, Clash Between Proposed CAFO and Richland Township Looms, June 2, 2007 identifies the site as being on Southeast 60th Road, approximately 1.5 miles west of Route T. Another description refers to the site as 6 miles southeast of the City of Lamar. It goes on to state that KENOMA's plans are for seven surrounding barns, each with 2,600 weaned pigs at each site. Township Board member, Doug Haile is quoted as saying, "We have the full resolve to go forth to meet any legal challenge and the confidence that our resolution will prevail." Township Board Chairman Greg Harris, contends the odor will devalue rural property for residential purposes, and since the site is roughly six miles southeast of Lamar, it will have the same effect on Lamar property. With prevailing winds from the southeast during the summer months, he describes Lamar as being in the “bulls eye.” (his word)

Original post, Zoning Issue for 4,800 hog farm (Barton County), April 13, 2007

Interview with Doyle Childers, Director MDNR

The Joplin Globe, OP-ED, Sunday May 27, 2007 included an interview between Carol Stark-Editor, The Joplin Globe and Doyle Childers-Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). There is also a link to the audio of the interview.

Regarding Renewable Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES), Childers said that he hopes RES can stay in Carthage because of its ground-breaking technology. On the other hand, he says if the company can’t operate without violating odor laws, then it can’t continue to exist in a town of 14,000 people. He added that it’s a problem he says has gone on too long. Part of the reason behind that, he says, is because everyone would like to see RES succeed.

Regarding CAFO's, very few, if any, CAFO permits are ever turned down by the DNR. Childers says if the laws aren’t being broken, then the DNR has to issue the permit. Changing those laws doesn’t fall to him but to legislators. In essence, Childers’ message is that we have more control over the fate of our environment than the DNR does.

Stark concludes that unfortunately, Childer's department doesn’t appear to have the power or the money to fix the problems.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources with cojones?

Carol Stark-Editor, The Joplin Globe,Sunday, May 27, 2007, declares to her readers that it is Time to Take Ownership. She states that between one-third and one-half of area streams and creeks routinely test for levels of E. coli so high that they are unsafe for bodily contact.

It will take willing legislators who lean more toward protecting the people than prostituting themselves for big agriculture. It will take community and county leaders who aren’t afraid of zoning and planning, tougher septic controls and implementation of rural sewer districts. And, finally, it will take a Missouri Department of Natural Resources with cojones.

All of this will mean taking ownership, not just of our favorite swimming or fishing holes, but for our part of the problem, for our septic systems, and our wastewater treatment plants, and our runoff from our farms. It also will mean taking ownership of the political process and making lifestyle changes today so we don’t wreck one of the best things about living in the Ozarks. It will take swimming upstream. It will take a lot of work. But count us in!

Knock, knock..is anyone listening.

CAFO Resources, References and Links

Here are links to the most important resources and references in documenting the affects of CAFO's on our lives, our land, our air, and our water resources.

1. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Health Consultation, Final Report on Exposure Investigation Findings, Valley View Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

2. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Guide to Animal Feeding Operations

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Animal Feeding Operations

4. Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study

5. Potential Health Effects of Odor From Animal Operations, Wastewater Treatment, and Recycling of Byproducts

6. Minnesota Medicine - Community and Environmental Health Effects of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

7. An Environmental Nuisance: Odor Concentrated and Transported by Dust

8. Quantification of Odors and Odorants from Swine Operations in North Carolina

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health Studies.1

10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health Studies.2

11. Human Health Effects of Agriculture: Physical Diseases and Illness

12. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Public Health and Community Impacts

13. What are the Human Health Effects From Breathing the Air Near Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations for Feeder Cattle or Hogs?

14. APHA Precautionary Moratorium on New Concentrated Animal Feed Operations

15. Public Health Concerns for Neighbors of Large-Scale Swine Production Operations

16. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy - Food and Health Program Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Health Risks to Farmers and Workers

17. USDA National Workshop on Agricultural Air Quality

18. Health Effects of Aerial Emissions from Animal Production Waste Management Systems, White Paper Summary

19. Air Emissions From Animal Production Buildings,

20. Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of Life Among Eastern North Carolina Residents

21. Airborne Multi-drug Resistant Bacteria Isolated from a Concentrated Swine Feeding Operation

22. Symptomatic Effects of Exposure to Diluted Air Sampled from a Swine Confinement Atmosphere on Healthy Human Subjects

23. NEIGHBOR HEALTH AND LARGE-SCALE SWINE PRODUCTION, A White Paper Prepared for the Conference An Agricultural Safety and Health Conference: Using Past and Present to Map Future Action, March 3-4, 2001, Baltimore, Maryland

24. Public Health Assessment ValAdCo Confined Livestock Operation, Renville County, Minnesota, February 2003

25. Increased Animal Waste Production from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOS): Potential Implications for Public and Environmental Health. Nebraska Center for Rural Health Research

26. Monitoring and Modeling of Emissions from CAFOs: Overview of Methods. Environmental Health Perspectives, November 2006

27. Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFOs) Chemicals Associated with Air Emissions. CAFO subcommittee of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, May 10, 2006.

28. The Confinement Animal Feeding Operation Workshop, June 23-24, 1998, Washington, DC. National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 1998

29. Bacterial Plume Emanating from the Air Surrounding Swine Confinement Operations. Christopher F. Green, Shawn G. Gibbs, et al. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. Volume 3, Number 1, January 2006

30. Confined Animal Facilities in California, November 2004

31. Animal Factories: Pollution and Health Threats to Rural Texas, May 2000. Consumer Union.

32. Health Effects of Airborne Exposures from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, February 2007.

33. Detecting and Mitigating the Environmental Impact of Fecal Pathogens Originating from the Confined Animal Feeding Operations: Review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/600/R-06/021, September 2005.

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Impacts of Animal Feeding Operations. December 31, 1998.

35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, Swine CAFO Odors: Guidance for Environment Impact Assessment.

36. Ambient hydrogen sulfide, total reduced sulfur, and hospital visit for respiratory diseases in northeast Nebraska, 1998-2000. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, March 2004.

37. Community Health and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, February 2007.

38. EPA Gives Animal Feeding Operations Immunity from Environmental Statutes in a Sweetheart Deal. Laura Karvosky, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

39. Impacts of Waster from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality, Environmental Health Perspectives, February 2007.

40. Race, Poverty, and Potential Exposure of Middle-School Students to Air Emissions from Confined Swine Feeding Operations, Environmental Health Perspectives, April 2006.

41. The Potential Role of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Infectious Disease Epidemics and Antibiotic Resistance, Environmental Health Perspectives, Feb 2007.

42. Raising a Stink: Air Emissions from Factory Farms, Michele Merkel, July 1, 2002.

43. Feedlot Air Quality Summary, Data Collection, Enforcement and Program Development, March 1999. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

44. Testimony of Karen Hudson. Peoria County Board of Public Health, Illinois. July 19, 2001.

45. Odor from industrial hog farming operations and mucosal immune function in neighbors, Archives of Environmental Health, February 2004.

46. Isolation of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria from the Air Plume Downwind of a Swine Confined or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2006.

47. The effect of environment odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents, Brain Research Bulletin, Volume 37, Issue 4, 1995.

48. The health significance of environmental odor pollution, Archives of Environmental Health, January-February 1992.

49. Livestock Odors: Implications for Human Health and Well-Being, Journal of Animal Science, 1998.

50. An Evaluation of Health Concerns in Milford, Utah and the Possible
Relationship of Circle Four Farms to Those Concerns. Southwest Utah
Board of Health, Southwest Utah Public Health Department, February 2001.

51. Science of Odor as a Potential Health Issue, Journal of Environmental Quality, January-February 2005.

52. Environmental Injustice in North Carolina's Hog Industry, Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2000.

53. NPDES Permit Writers' Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, December 31, 2003.

54. Consent Decree Between USA and Citizens Legal Environmental Action Net Work, Inc and Premium Standard Farms Inc. Case No. 97-6073-CV-SJ-6. United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, St. Joseph Division.

55. Human Health Effects of Hog Waste, Swinker M., North Carolina Medical Journal 59:16-18 (1998).

56. Control study of the physical and mental health of residents living near a large-scale swine operation. Thu K, Donham K, Ziegenhorn R, Reynolds S, Thorne P, Subramanian P, Whitten P, Stookesberry J.A., Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 3:13-26 (1997).

57. Beware of Manure Pit Hazards. Howard J.D, Howard L.P, William M., Michigan State University Extension.

58. Final Technical Work Paper for Human Health Issues, Animal Agriculture GEIS, Jan 2001. Earth Tech, Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN.

Update on 65,600-chicken CAFO Eagle Rock, MO

Wally Kennedy, reports in The Joplin Globe, May 8, 2007, that over 60 people are being listed as part of the appeal, filed in opposition to a permit to construct a 65,600-chicken CAFO near Roaring River State Park. The date for the appeal hearing has not been set. A group opposing the project, Friends of Roaring River, is taking pledges to help support the cost of the appeal. Pledges can be made by contacting Ruth Buchner, of Eagle Rock, 417-271-4478.

Here are previous posts on the Ozbun CAFO, located near Eagle Rock (Barry County) MO and the Friends of Roaring River:
Eagle Rock Group Appealing CAFO Permit
"It's my land..." says Michelle Ozbun
Barry County, CAFO's and Ozbun Farms, Part 3
Barry County, CAFO's and Ozbun Farms, Part 2
Barry County, CAFOs and Ozbun Farms

Moratorium proposed on CAFOs

Wally Kennedy reports in The Joplin Globe, May 8, 2007, the Missouri Association of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, recently adopted a resolution supporting a moratorium on CAFOs until potential hazards to the health and welfare of Missouri residents can be resolved and residents’ safety can be reasonably assured. The resolution is (1) in response to the accumulation of medical and scientific evidence documenting negative effects to humans, animals and the environment. The group said (2) CAFOs contribute to the depositing of heavy metals in soil and water, and promote the excessive use of hormones and growth stimulators to force rapid maturation of food animals; (3) CAFOs have been found to be among the largest point-source producers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria through misapplication of antibiotics as food additives and growth enhancers.

Update #2 on GBE and Webster County Ethanol Plant

An update on the controversy surrounding Citizens of Rogersville ( Webster County) MO vs. Gulfstream Bioflex Energy and Update #1 on GBE and Webster County Ethanol Plant , Mike Penprase, The Springfield News-Leader, reported May 5, 2007 that (Boone County Circuit) Judge Frank Conley in Webster County District Court, ruled in favor of the Defendant, Gulfstream Bioflex Energy (GFE) of Mount Vernon, MO, lifting the temporary restraining order, allowing GBE to begin construction of a new $165 million ethanol plant. Here are links to this article and related articles about the decision and the project.

The Issues:
* 1.3 million gallons of water per day used by proposed ethanol plant
* 400,000 gallons per day of contaminated water from proposed ethanol plant
* "Cone of Depression"-a lowered water table, Missouri State University Study (2005)
* Ozark Aquifer has already dropped 140' in places from 1987-2004
* More than half of nearly 300 well owners in northern Green County (MO) reported problem with their wells in a survey five years ago by the Watershed Committee of the Ozarks.
* Landowner Larry Porter, wants to sell his 250 acres farm to GBE for $12,000 per acre, where the typical price for an acre of land is $2,500-$3,000.

Gulfstream Bioflex Energy - defendant
Bryan Wade, attorney for defendant (Springfield, MO.)
Greg Wilmouth, V.P.(co-founder)
James Kaiman, President
Charles Luna

Citizens for Groundwater Protection - plaintiff
William (Bill) McDonald, attorney for plaintiff
Larry Alberty
Dean Alberty
Gary Rogers
Dave Pitts

Ethanol plants come with hidden cost: Water Bill Lambrecht, St. Louis Post-Dispatch writes a thorough review of the basic issues in the ethanol-water controversy.

Judge approves Webster County ethanol plant Matt Wagner's report, Springfield Business Journal, includes references to the testimony of the defendant's industry experts, including: Jim Van Dyke, groundwater section chief for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources; John Van Brahana, a University of Arkansas hydrogeologist; and Ray Hamilton, a Denver-based engineer with Carter & Burgess. The plaintiff's attorney is quoted in the article as saying that Judge Conley erred by applying a standard of proof higher than a “reasonable likelihood” that the plant would negatively affect the groundwater supply. “We’re filing post-trial motions, and we’ll – in all probability – appeal,” he said, adding that his clients have 30 days to file the motion.

White River Group of the Sierra Club's program “Ethanol Production in the Ozarks,” The Springfield News-Leader reports on the meeting, scheduled for 7:00pm, Tuesday, May 8, 2007, at the Springfield Conservation Nature Center. The program will feature, Bob Schulteis, University of Missouri Extension and Chairman of the Webster County committee to study the proposed Rogersville ethanol plant.

Air and Water Quality are the 1,000 lb. Economic Gorillas

In Our Opinion, Counties Need More Controls The Joplin Globe, Friday April 20, 2007 came out and said it,
1. State legislators should do whatever they can to give counties greater control over where large livestock and fowl operations can locate.
2. Counties should have the power to be restrictive if CAFOs threaten the quality of water, air and, under many circumstances, rural lifestyle.
3. All counties should have health ordinances on their books to protect their constituencies.
4. Many farmers and rural residents see factory farms as potential spoilers of water and air quality and of quality of life.
5. Air and water quality promise to be the 1,000-pound economic gorillas of the future.
6. The Joplin region needs a large water impoundment to guarantee enough water for this growing area. What it doesn’t need are gagging odors permeating the air and animal wastes jeopardizing rivers and creeks. Only local control can guarantee that.

Let's get behind The Joplin Globe's bold challenge. The Jasper County commissioners have expressed little interest in developing local CAFO rules. In a related article, The Joplin Globe quotes Commissioner Honey as saying that the county does not have the expertise or the money for workers to enforce CAFO rules, which would have to be adopted as part of a health ordinance because the county does not have zoning and planning. Hello Jasper County Commissioners Jim Honey, Darieus Adams and John Bartosh. Maybe it is time to start talking about County Zoning and County Health Ordinances. Japer County needs zoning and health ordinances. This issue needs to be moved up on the priority list. This time let's be proactive, before the next CAFO or landfill files for an application. How many more Jasper County streams have to be declared unfit and dangerous before we take the initiative to take control?

MO Senate Bill 534

Missouri Senate Bill 534, proposed by southwest Missouri Sen. Gary Nodler, would target persistent offenders who violate air and water pollution regulations. This legislation would apply to CAFOs as well as recycling companies that process animal parts.

Recent headlines:
Substitute CAFO legislation draws critics The Joplin Globe, April 9, 2007

Modifies the law relating to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and the penalties for offenses perpetrated by these operations

Political hot potato heats up for CAFO bill The Joplin Globe, March 24, 2007

Committee on Legislative Research Oversight Division Fiscal Note

The Facts about CAFOs, Local Control,

The Facts about CAFOs, Local Control, and Health Ordinances Missouri Rural Crisis Center, Columbia, Missouri provides an excellent portrait of the CAFO crisis. They conclude that current Missouri standards are NOT sufficient for industrial livestock operations, after reviewing health risks, economic development, property rights and defining what it means to be a good neighbor.

Zoning Issue for 4,800 hog farm (Barton County)

The Joplin Globe, Saturday, March 30, 2007, reported that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) received an application from Francis Forst, Kenoma LLC, for a 4,800 hog farm on 11 acres in Richland Township, Barton County, MO. Initially the application was for 4,800, but after Darrick Steen, Agriculture Chief for MDNR's water protection program, explained that the proposed number of animals would subject the operation to strict regulatory oversight, the application was amended to 2,400 sows.

The concern of neighbors is the combination of the proposed operation -and- the existing 4,500 head cattle operation of Kevin van der Poel, Focal Dairy, in Richland Township and Vernon County. The operations would be in close proximity to Pettis Creek, a tributary of the North Fork of the Spring River.

John Stocksdale, Doylesport Township, Barton County, passed zoning and planning eight years ago. He suppported the proposition because citizens were concerned about the impact of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, on land and property values. He said there hasn’t been any controversy with the proposition since it passed and the board just makes sure everyone in the township understands the rules. The result, Stockdale said, is safety for everyone in the township. “Instead of taking away people’s rights, it protects them,” Stockdale said.

Election Results:
Richland Township Zoning
Yes . . 167. . . . . . . .
No . . . 39. . . . . . . .
The Lamar Democrat, Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Eagle Rock Group Appealing CAFO Permit

The appeal, filed by Mark Stephenson, a Joplin resident, who owns a farm near the site, and by Friends of Roaring River, a resident's group, will mount a challenge based on water quality issues. The Joplin Globe, Sunday, March 25, 2007 article reports that the Friends of Roaring River are encouraging those who are concerned about the future of the river, to write letters to the Administrative Hearing Commission by April 1, 2007. Letters may be faxed to 573-751-5018 or mailed to the Administration Hearing Commission, P.O. Box 1557, Jefferson City, MO. 65102.

DNR Thumbs its Arrogant Nose at Public Dissent, Again

Mr Albert Midoux, of Anderson MO has his Letter to the Editor published in The Joplin Globe, Sunday, March 25, 2007. I'd say that he covers the important issues in Missouri.

Change of Guard Needed. The citizens of Missouri are again receiving the shaft from their loyal politicos in Jefferson City and the Department of Natural Resources. The DNR is one of several agencies formed to protect our environment and natural resources. An agency, some believe, that will protect the quality of our aquifers and streams.

It has done neither! The Department of Natural Resources has again thumbed its arrogant nose at public dissent in issuing another CAFO (concentrated animal-feeding operation) permit in very close proximity to Roaring River State Park.

Governor Blunt quickly appointed the present director of DNR Doyle Childers to, in his words, “expedite the issuance of operating permits for CAFOs,” and in this aspect has shown great success, issuing permits as quickly as possible with no obvious interest in public opinion or negative impact of his decisions, showing little regard or total disregard for neighboring states and their concerns of polluted streams from Missouri crossing their borders.

Mr. Childers feels confident of support he has received from Main Street Missouri. The support in laying out the red carpet for Moark’s 3 million hen expansion which added 30 or so low-paying jobs just sniffing distance from Crowder College. The mayor, council members and political cheerleaders should be credited for adding aroma to the curriculum.

When Renewable Environmental Solutions, “a rendering plant designed to produce oil” was “inflicted” upon Carthage, it was hailed as a step toward energy independence. This failed endeavor has yielded more stench and misery than energy independence.

The stench continues to prevail, and the DNR will appear occasionally with their “stink-o-meter” and look confused, while the bureaucrats in Jefferson City are busy pushing for legislation to silence public and media dissent of “mega animal-feeding concentrations.”

DNR Lacks "Will and Authority"

The Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties has joined opponents of Missouri Senate Bill 364, saying that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has a "proven record of being ineffective". The Joplin Globe reported, Sunday March 25, 2007, that SB 364 would rescind health ordinances designed to regulate CAFOs that already have been adopted by 16 of the state’s 114 counties, and would make it tougher for a property owner who lives near a CAFO to sue the operation over nuisance issues. The bill is sponsored by state Sen. Chris Koster, R-Harrisonville. After reviewing the bill, the executive board of the two-county task force decided to urge local legislators to vote against it and, at the same time, seek additional regulatory authority for the DNR. Members of the task force say health ordinances are being adopted by Missouri counties because the DNR lacks “the will and authority to adopt appropriate rules and regulations, and the financial resources to enforce the rules and regulations.”

The Environmental Task Force of Jasper and Newton Counties have sent letters, expressing opposition to SB 364 to: State Senator Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, and State Representatives Steve Hunter, Ron Richard, Marilyn Ruestman, Bryan Stevenson and Kevin Wilson, who represent Southwest Missouri. The letters say that “counties have the responsibility to protect the health, welfare and safety of its citizens. SB 364 limits a county’s ability to discharge that responsibility.”

The article states that about 30% (153 out of 517) of the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO's) in Missouri, are in southwest Missouri (Jasper-10 CAFO's, Newton-33, Barry-62, Barton-1, McDonald-32 and Lawrence-15, Counties).

Odor Rule Stakeholder Workgroup

The Joplin Globe, reported in Sunday, March 11, 2007 headline, 'Not Enough Smellees' questions from Carthage Mayor Jim Woestman regarding the make-up of the State's Odor Workshop Participants. Mayor Jim Woestman said he did some research on those named to the committee and it appeared to him the group needed more representation from people who smell the odors and less from industries creating the smells. “They’ve got people on there from Changing World Technologies (which developed the RES plant), from Tyson Foods and Premium Standard Farms,” Woestman said. “It seems to me there are too many smellers and not enough smellees.”

Polluters and Cronies of Polluters
Brian Appel, Changing World Technology
Jamie Burr, Tyson Foods, Inc.
Don Nikodim, Missouri Pork Association
Dave Drennan, Missouri Dairy Association
Dave Townsend, Premium Standard Farms
Missouri Farm Bureau

Environmentalists
Terry Spence, Citizens legal Environmental Action Network (CLEAN)
Ted Heisel, Washington University for CLEAN
Roger Walker, Regulatory Environmental Group for Missouri
Dwayne (Bill) Miller, Missouri Stream team
Ken Midkiff, Sierra Club

Questionable position or presumed neutral
Leanne Tippett Mosby, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Environmental Quality
Robert Brundage, Newman, Comley, & Ruth for MO, AG
Jay Shipman, Missouri Association of Counties
Morris Westfall, Governor's Ombudsman
Jane Drummond, Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS)
Dan Engemann, Department of Agriculture
Joe Bindbeutel, Missouri Attorney's General Office
Joe Engeln, DNR
Brian D. Newby, DNR, Air Pollution Control Program

If I have pegged someone in the wrong category, please let me know. I guess that we'll have to wait for the first group vote, for those listed as questionable or presumed neutral, to make their position known. We are watching!

2000 head cattle CAFO Jasper County

Cattle operation files CAFO plans The Joplin Globe reporter Susan Ready describes Triple C Cattle Co's plan to build a 2,000 head cattle CAFO at 9047 County Road 70, Avilla, MO. 64859. The owner, John Charleston, said that the CAFO would be on 14 acres, and in addition to approximately 1,000 head of cattle that Triple C Cattle Co. keeps during the summer months. The article indicated that Triple C Cattle Co. had a complaint regarding a manure runoff problem 2 years ago, that Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) investigated. MDNR did not cite the operation for a violation but did note manure-control problems that needed to be corrected.
[Click on GoogleEarth photo for larger view of Triple C Cattle Co.]

Update #1 on GBE and Webster County Ethanol Plant

An update on the controversy surrounding Citizens of Rogersville ( Webster County) MO vs. Gulfstream Bioflex Energy, November 2006, is reported by Wes Johnson and Donna Baxter in the Springfield New Leader, Wells will be safe, company vows. They quote GBE President James Kaiman as saying that, Gulfstream Bioflex Energy promises to drill neighbors' wells deeper if the company's proposed ethanol plant used too much water.


Ethanol plant foes pack courtroom The Marshfield Mail reports on the lawsuit filed by a grass roots group (Citizens for Groundwater Protection of Webster County) against Gulfstream Bioflex Energy, which wants to locate a $165 million ethanol plant between Rogersville and Fordland. This is a great resource document for identifying issues in the case.

GBE withdraws preliminary request for air permit The Springfield Business Journal, Matt Wagner reports that Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC,(GBE) a Mount Vernon company hoping to build a corn-based ethanol plant near Rogersville has temporarily withdrawn its request for air modeling inventories in Newton, Jasper and McDonald counties, a state official said. Last month, GBE notified the Missouri Department of Natural Resources that the inventories, a preliminary step toward an air pollution permit, were not a priority, said Permits Section Chief Kyra Moore. The company’s move does not rule out future plant proposals by GBE in those counties, she said. “Newton, Jasper and McDonald counties are not our main focus at this time.”

"It's my land..." says Michelle Ozbun

"It's my land; it's my right to make a living," says Michelle Ozbun, standing with husband Rodney on the Ozbun farm site where they plan to build a chicken CAFO, despite protests from neighbors. The Ozbuns now raise meat goats and some horses on their 75-acre family farm, but people like Jim Riedel don't consider the Ozbuns farmers. "That's 80 acres of rocks up there," he said of the farm where the Ozbuns live in a mobile home. "It's not good for anything other than goats and, now, chicken houses. I don't call that a farm." Springfield News Leader

Michelle’s attitude of “it’s my land” and I can do what I want with it, is hardly a picture of good fiduciary responsibility, a long term vision, a successful business, and a neighborly attitude. We have all heard of or had one of these neighbors. Following the public hearing, Michele said "I didn't know anybody in that room, nor did Dad." To me, that means she hasn’t spent much time getting to know her neighbors. If 200+ people showed up at a meeting in opposition to something that I wanted to do, I would (1) reconsider the project, (2) relocate the project elsewhere, or (3) try and work with the neighbors to come up with a solution, everyone could live with. This concept of “it’s mine” sounds a lot like the kindergarten child on the playground. You would think that as adults Rodney and Michelle would have learned the skills of getting along, sharing, and listening.

Barry County, CAFO's and Ozbun Farms, Part 3

The Joplin Globe reported Friday, March 2, 2007 about the experiences of Missouri citizens at the Senate Agriculture, Conservation, Parks and Natural Resources Committee, wanting to speak against SB 364. Representatives of a group called, Friends of Roaring River, said supporters of the bill were given preferential treatment compared with the treatment afforded opponents of the bill. Jim Riedel, a member of the group said “They let everyone who supported the bill have their say, and then, when it was our turn, they cut us off. We never had an opportunity. We are fighting for local control, and the way we were treated is a good example of why we need local control. We had no representation. You could just see that the small person was getting run over. The whole procedure was disappointing.”

State grants permit for 65,000-chicken CAFO, The Joplin Globe reported, Saturday, March 3, 2007, that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) approved Ozbun Farms' construction permit to build a 65,000 chicken CAFO a half-mile from Roraring River (Barry County). Opponents say they plan to appeal. They also plan to continue pursuit of a health ordinance in Barry County that will give local officials more control over where future CAFOs would be permitted to locate. Sixteen other Missouri counties have adopted such ordinances.

Groups propose 'halo' buffer zones Mike Penprase, Springfield News Leader, describes the controversy, across Missouri, surrounding CAFO's and State Parks, State Historic Sites and sites on the National Register of Historic Places. [Click on map to enlarge]

In Our Opinion...More CAFO Controls Needed

The Joplin Globe's, Tuesday, February 20, 2007, OpEd More CAFO Controls Needed, says it all. They are encouraged by opponents' deterrent strategy of obtaining private appraisals on adjoining property, then threatening lawsuits if their property values diminish, due to their proximity to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO's). Another strategy is requiring green zones around rivers and historic sites as a buffer. The Globe challenges lawmakers to give counties the necessary regulatory tools to protect the quality of life of their residents from unwelcome and potentially damaging animal feeding operations.

The future of rural communities can be bright, for those who have the wisdom and the courage to claim it.

Once rural people have reclaimed their right to a healthy and clean environment, they can begin the task of rebuilding an economic, social, and ecological foundation needed for sustainable community development. The future of rural America is in the land and the imagination, creativity, and work ethic of the people of rural communities, not in the cunning and conniving of outside corporate investors. Now is the time to start reinvesting in a new approach to agriculture and a new approach to rural community development, not a time to exploit both land and people for the sake of short run profits. The future of rural communities can be bright, for those who have the wisdom and the courage to claim it, by John Ikerd, The Questions Rural Communities Should Ask About CAFOs

Missouri Senate Bill 364

It looks like the next Environmental Battlefield will be the Missouri legislature.

Senate Bill 364 Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, state law and regulations adopted by state agencies shall preempt the entire field of and constitute a complete and integrated regulatory plan for agricultural operations in Missouri. This includes the preemption of any local laws promulgated under Sect 192.300, RSMo, that address agricultural operations and their appurtenances. A local law or ordinance is null and void to the extent that the ordinance attempts to regulate the licensing or operation of an agricultural operation or its appurtenances in any manner not identical to the laws of this state and regulations of the department of natural resources. THIS IS BAD FOR FARMERS. THIS IS BAD FOR MISSOURI. THIS IS BAD LEGISLATION

Blunt Hawks Koster's "MegaAgriBiz Protection Bill"; Farm Bureau Does the Bobblehead Routine This bill would essentially invalidate present county ordinances that affect industrial livestock operations as well as denying citizens the right to complain about "odor trespass" from commericial feedlot operations, according to a post on FiredUpMissouri.com. Check out the reader comments, too.

Missouri Senate Bill No. 364 (2007): Proposes to pre-empt local laws (county, health board, township, city) by state laws and regulations regarding agricultural operations. Prepared by the Missouri Agricultural Law Center.

Farmers Outraged by Blunt's State of the State The Moberly Monitor, Friday, January 26, 2007. The headline says it all. In Governor Blunt's State of the State speech, he urged the legislature to pass Senate Bill 364, deceivingly spun as the “Missouri Farm and Food Preservation Act”, which in reality would end local governments' authority to protect the health and well-being of their constituents

Athens State Park (Clark County, MO), Terry Daw Farms, CAFO's & Cargill

Who's Who:

CAFO Operator/Applicant:
Terry Daw Farms, RR#1 Box 40, Revere, (Clark County) MO. 63465
EPA Facility Registration System (FRS): MOR108586, MOG010673
Missouri Stormwater Permit dated 08/11/2006, expires 02/07/2007

CARGILL, operates hog slaughtering plants in Ottumwa, Iowa and Beardstown, IL. They are trying to develop 30 contract feeding operations in northern Missouri and western Illinois, according to Tim Steinkamp, business development manager for Cargill. The two processing plants each can kill and process 18,000 hogs a day, five days a week, according to Mark Klein, Cargill spokesman. Cargill operates a feed mill at Montgomery City (Montgomery County, MO) that will serve farmers who will build the buildings and operate the feeding operations.

Opponents:
The Battle of Athens II - Pigs vs. Parks This is a group of citizens in North East Missouri where Cargill and Terry Daw, are planning to build a 5,000 head hog factory 1.5 miles from Battle of Athens State Park. "It simply does not make sense that the people of Missouri have invested millions of dollars in creating and protecting our parks, and the same DNR that is charged with protecting them freely gives permits to large corporations to damage our parks. You have a voice that can help tip the scale in the direction of protecting our parks and our way of life. We can rise to the occasion and design our futures from the inside out, and not let the state government, unelected bureaucrats, and large companies design it for us from the outside in. We must join together to make our own BIG STINK." Betty Halberstadt

It's not hog heaven near giant farms, Newsday.com, Sylvia Carter describes a Cargill hog CAFO in Scotland Couty, MO.

CAFO splits neighbors, Danny Henley, Hannibal Courrier Post, describes the New London (Ralls County, Missouri) debate over "confined animal feeding operations", and how they are becomingly increasingly contentious across Missouri.

State of Missouri vs. Cargill, Inc. A Copy of the Audrain County Missouri $160,000 Consent Judgement for illegally dumping hog wastes into Loutre River, a tributary of the Missouri River.

Hog Wars: Part 4, The Environment(...and factory farms) This article is taken from the Missouri Rural Crisis Center publication "Hog Wars: The Corporate Grab for Control of the Hog Industry and How Citizens are Fighting Back". It addresses the waste, odor, gasses, air, water, soil, food safety concerns and animal welfare.

National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (NCIFAP)

The Joplin Independent, Monday, February 5, 2007, includes an article about the National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (NCIFAP) and a public hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2007, at the Inn at Carnall Hall on the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville campus, regarding the public health, environmental, rural community, and animal health impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Inn at Carnall Hall
465 N. Arkansas Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72701
University of Arkansas campus
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
1:00-7:00 p.m.

Public hearings are one component of the Commission’s 2-year examination of the food animal production model commonly known as intensive or confined animal feeding operations, where hundreds, and often times thousands, of animals are raised in one location. Many issues the NCIFAP is addressing include but are not limited to zoonotic diseases, such as avian influenza, Salmonella, and E. coli; manure and waste disposal systems; chicken litter; air and water pollution concerns; and the use of chicken feed supplemented with arsenic-based growth promoters.

Citizens to Protect State Parks and Historic Sites

Arrow Rock Citizens Launch Statewide Organization To Curb CAFOs, The Booneville Daily News, Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Pig plans spur push for rules , Columbia Daily Tribune, Sunday, January 28, 2007

Blunt: state, not local government should decide rules for farms, The Booneville Daily News, Monday, January 29, 2007

County health board hears about CAFO, The Marshall Democrat-News, Friday, February 2, 2007

Creating a 'halo' - Group wants 5-mile buffer from proposed CAFO, The Booneville Daily News, Monday, January 29, 2007

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO): Arrow Rock proposal/Part 1: The issues/Proposed Arrow Rock CAFO outlined, The Marshall Democrat-News, Wednesday, January 24, 2007

CAFO: Arrow Rock proposal/Part 2: The farmer/Hog farmer tells his side of story/'We try to keep (odor) under control the best we can,' man says, The Marshall Democrat-News, Thursday, January 25, 2007

CAFO: Arrow Rock proposal/Part 3: The debate/Arrow Rock residents want 'buffer zone'/DNR, which controls both state parks and pork permits, should have 'scrutiny,' they say, The Marshall Democrat-News, Friday, January 26, 2007

Who's Who:

CAFO applicant, Dennis & Chrissy Gessling (Arrow Rock, Saline County, MO), filed January 5, 2007

Citizens to Protect State Parks and Historic Sites:
Whitney Kerr
Kathy Borgman
David Finke

Saline County, MO:
Becky Plattner-Presiding Commissioner
Stephen Allegi-Health Department Board
Craig Sullivan-Health Inspector

Barry County, CAFO's and Ozbun Farms, Part 2

The Joplin Globe's front page story, River Runs Near It, Sunday, February 4, 2007, describes developments in the Barry County-Ozbun Farms CAFO application, along with other initiatives in the state to manage development of CAFO's near state parks and historic sites, called Citizens to Protect State Parks and Historic Sites.

The Ozbun Farm, owned by Michelle and Rodney Ozbun is seeking a permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to buildfour pulklet houses. The CAFO, the first of its kind in the Roaring River Watershed, would be 1.5 miles from the park. The CAFO would be operated under a contract with George's Farms, Inc. which operates a processing plant north of Cassville, MO.

Other proposed CAFO's now in the State include: (1) a 4800 head hog operation near Arrow Rock, MO, a state historic site on the Missouri River near Booneville, MO. and (2) a hog farm not far from the Athens State Park, on the Des Moines River, near the Missouri-Iowa State line. Citizen representatives from Arrow Rock and Athen's State Park have contacted the Roaring River group. They are wanting to raise awarenss of the potential environmental issues as well as develop and propose legislation that would create buffers around historic sites and parks to protect them.

The strategy of using County Health Ordinances is being talked about as a defensive/managemnt tool in regulating CAFO's where MDNR won't or can't. This description of the situation says it all, “Let’s face it: The MDNR is much more interested in protecting polluters than preventing pollution,” he said. “But this issue with the state parks and historic sites has really put the MDNR in a bind. It has to balance its protection of state parks against the economic aspect of tourists who come into this state and dump money. “Those tourists don’t visit the Arrow Rock historic site to smell hog manure.” With regard to the geology of the Eagle Rock site, Midkiff said: “I don’t think you should put a CAFO there. ... There are caves, springs and sinkholes all over that area. It is the definition of karst topography. Surface water in that area quickly becomes groundwater,” Ken Midkiff, spokesman for the Missouri Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Is Change in the Air?

The Jefferson City News Tribune , January 31, 2007, reported on a group of regulators, activists and livestock industry officials, called Odor Rule Stakeholders Workgroup, that met for the first time to consider changes to the state's odor regulations, last revised in 1999. One of the participants represented a group of Missouri homeowners, known as Citizens Legal Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), that recently won $4.5 million from Premium Standard's Farm for damages, due to stench. Some of the other participants included Missouri Agribusiness Association and Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The group is scheduled to meet monthly through July 2007, eventually proposing a rule change recommendation to the Missouri Air Conservation Commission.

Barry County, CAFOs and Ozbun Farms

The Joplin Globe reports (Wednesday, January 10, 2007) on a CAFO application in Barry County (MO) by Rodney and Michelle Ozbun dba Ozbun Farms (Cassville, MO.) The article, Residents Concerned About Poultry Houses, describes concern among neighboring property owners regarding the impact the proposed poultry operation will have on Roaring River. Concerned residents are meeting, Thursday, January 11, 2007, at 7:00 pm, at the All Faith United Methodist Church on Highway 86 in Eagle Rock. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has scheduled a public "informational meeting" on Monday, January 22, 2007, bewteen 4:00 and 7:00 pm, also at the All Faith United Methodist Church.

[MDNR News Release 561] On Oct. 31, Ozbun Farms submitted a construction permit application to the department for a Class IC Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. A construction permit is required for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation housing more than 60,000 chicken pullets. A chicken pullet is a young hen that is being groomed to lay egg. The farm raises the pullets from chicks and then sends them to another farm where they will breed broiler chickens. Ozbun Farms' proposed waste management system is a no-discharge operation. This means that process wastes are contained and stored until proper land application of the process wastes can be done.

The department is currently in the process of reviewing Ozbun Farms' permit application. The department must ensure that the permit application complies with Missouri law and that the operations will protect the quality of the water in southwest Missouri. If the permit application meets all regulatory requirements and demonstrates that the operation will protect water quality, the department is required to issue the permit. The department expects to make a final decision to issue or deny the permit in February. [Click on picture to enlarge]

CAFO Ordinances

Missouri Farms Dairy (MFD), Golden City, MO. was cited Friday, December 29, 2006 for allowing wastewater to flow from its lagoon into Dry Fork Branch, a violation of their operating permit. Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Environmental Specialist, George Parsons, indicated that there were some maintenence issues causing the pollution problems.

Missouri Farms Dairy, originally called Hylton Dairy, was built on a 538-acre farm near Maple Grove (MO.). It is Jasper County's first confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) involving cows. The dairy produces about 6 million cubic feet of manure annually, according to The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, January 3, 2007, DNR Cites Dairy Runoff A $3 million construction permit was issued by MDNR in 2000 to Danny Hylton of Hylton Dairy. It was aquired by MFD in 2004.

An adjacent property owner and environmental activist, Brent Erwin, spoke to the Jasper County Commission on Thursday, January 4, 2006, and encouraged the County to enact a CAFO ordinance. He reminded the comission that he asked for regulation of the large, concentrated livestock operation in 1999. "You said that you would look at a CAFO ordinance, but you dropped the ball." Erwin said that MFD has 1250 cows and a 10-acre lagoon. "If they can't manage their runoff in a drought, what's going to happen when we get a wet season?" Jasper County Commissioner Jim Honey responded by saying "I'm most interested in seeing setbacks from roads and streams. I don't think the county has the reources or the scientific knowledge to police them (CAFOs) otherwise". Erwin said that thirteen counties in Missouri have enacted CAFO ordinances, and that at least one, in Linn County, has withstood a court challenge.

CAFO's, MOARK and Doyle Childers

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Director, Doyle Childers was in Newton and Jasper County for public hearings on Friday, Januray 5, 2007. The Joplin Globe, Saturday, January 6, 2006, Water Issue Dominates Session, described a meeting with MOARK Officials regarding their three notices of violation that have been issued due to offensive odors. MOARK has not been fined. Childers said that 'companies like MOARK are being told what to do in order that they understand it and get it right. The MDNR will not be very friendly if they don't comply'.

Childers said that he is not in favor of individual counties adopting their own Confined Animal Feeding Operation(CAFO) ordinances. Somone in the audience said that health ordinances are needed in local counties because the state is incapable of regulating the growth of CAFOs. This individual cited evidence that there are 160 million chickens and turkeys in the Elk River and Spring River watersheds. Childers was asked whether there is a saturation point, and he responded by saying "That's a tough question."

In response to a question about water usage, Childers said 'that the MDNR has no legal authority to control water usage in Missouri, a state with riparian water laws in which usage and private-property rights are regulated by the courts.' He added that there is discussion under way on how to best monitor and measure nutrient loading into streams. He said that depletion of ground-water resources in Southwest missouri could become a critical issue 10 to 20 years from now. He added, "We need to impound every drop of water we can."

MOARK's Excessive Odors

There are two Notices (October 25 and November 2, 2006) of excessive odors pending against MOARK at the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). A third Notice of excessive odors, dated November 13, 2006 elicited a response from MOARK (Moark Seven Farms) within the 15-day deadline. Why is MDNR waiting to escalate the October 25 and November 2 excessive odor Notices, to Violations?

MOARK Odor Captured in Stink-o-Meter

The Joplin Independent, Saturday, November 18, 2006, reported on two new 'excess odor violations' detected by Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) staff on November 2, 2006, coming from MOARK property, just south of Neosho, MO. Local residents encourage anyone who smells odor violations coming from MOARK to call (417) 451-5158 and report the probable violation.

The Joplin Globe, Tuesday, November 21, 2006, reports that an earlier violation was also documented on October 25, 2006. The article reports that MOARK (Moark Seven Farms) has received three violation notices, December 9, 2005, and November 3, 2006 and November 13, 2006. According to the article, the earlier detections were from MOARK's composting facility, based on samples collected on the campus of Crowder College, adjacent to the MOARK property.

The more recent detections were collected on the Missouri National Guard property, north of the MOARK composting facility.

Citizens of Rogersville ( Webster County) MO vs. Gulfstream Bioflex Energy

The Columbia Daily Tribune, Sunday, November 18, 2006, reports on another Ozark Aquafer issue. Gulfstream Bioflex Energy (GBE) wants to build a $165 million ethanol plant (located at U.S. 60 and Porter Crossing Road) in Rogersville, MO. The Groundwater Impact Committee, appointed by the Webster County (MO) Commission to investigate the proposed plant, maintains that the plant would suck so much groundwater from the area that nearby residents would have to dig deeper wells to supply water for their homes.

Bob Schultheis (one of five members of the Groundwater Impact Committee), prepared a report on the impact that the proposed ethanol plant would have on the region, Groundwater Impact Statement Concerning the Proposed Ethanol Plant. The report concluded that "it is difficult to refute the fact that southwest Webster County is among the portions of Missouri where an ethanol plant would have greatest potential for negatively impacting groundwater quality and availability."

Gulfstream Bioflex Energy
Greg Wilmoth, CEO, Mt. Vernon (Lawrence County) MO.
Jeff Negre, V.P.
Charles Luna, V.P.
Richard Quint, Sr. V.P. (Walton Construction Co-Springfield, MO)
Brett Carlgren, Engineer
Byran Wade, Atty (Husch & Eppenberger LLC-Springfiled, MO)
Jason Smith, Atty. for defendants

Groundwater Impact Committee
Bob Schultheis, Chair
Larry Alberty
Karen Asher
Joe Blaine
Joyce Noland

Citizens for Ground Water Protection
William McDonald, Atty. for plantiffs

Questions & Answers about the Proposed Ethanol Plant Webster County (MO) Groundwater Impact Committee. This is an excellent information resource regarding the project, including maps, contact information, geology, and the Ozark aquafer.

Ethanol Battle Becomes David vs. Goliath story, Springfield News Leader (MO) This article describes the court battle, the injunction, and the issues.

Blunt Brothers Deny Connection to Cousin's Ethanol Plant, Springfield Business Journal. This article refers to GBE's family ties to MO Goveror Matt Blunt, and US Representative Roy Blunt.

Christian County Residents Fuel Plant Concerns , US Cavers Forum. This blog/bulletin board provides a comprehensive look at the project, the principals, and the environmental concerns.

Water from the Ozark Aquifer

The Joplin Globe has done an excellent job characterizing the identification, then development of concerns, and now the analysis of issues regarding the Ozark Aquifer. The following are links to articles describing the parties involves, the challenges, the facts, and the process.

Jasper County Pulling Most Water from Ozark Aquifer (11/09/2006) Allen McFarlane, Kansas Geological Survey, said that Jasper County (MO) is taking 11 billion gallons from the Ozark Aquifer annually, compared to 3.5 billion in Cherokee County (KS), 3 billion in Newton County (MO), and Barton, McDonald and Barry Counties (MO) and Ottawa County (OK) each pulling 3.5 to 5 billion gallons annually. Walt Aueott, Coordinator of the Ozark Aquifer Project for United States Geological Society (USGS) estimated that the aquifer in Southwest Missouri and Southeast Kansas holds 107 trillion gallons and flows in a northwesterly direction from western Barry County (MO) into Southeast Kansas.

Southeast Kansans fear Missourians Literally Sucking Shared Supply Dry (05/08/2005) It didn't come as a surprise when it happened, but it sure opened Mel Mittag's eyes. "When Empire filled its reservoir at the state line power plant, the static water level in our main well dropped 15 to 20 feet. It took six months for the well to recover,'' he said. "We had several outlying shallow wells that went dry.''

Water Dominates Conference (05/04/2005) Participants in the annual Missouri Water and Wastewater Conference on Tuesday in Monett were told that the Ozark Aquifer is not an unlimited supply of water, and that there could be a water shortage in Southwest Missouri during a drought. Jack Wittman, with Wittman Hydro Planning Associates, Bloomington, Ind., and a member of the Tri-State Water Resource Coalition, was invited to attend the conference to explain the increasing pressure that is being placed on the aquifer

Officials: Water Shortage Looming (12/10/2004) The Ozark Aquifer Water Summit, staged Thursday in Joplin, was designed to bring people together to talk about the possibility of a future water shortage in Southwest Missouri. For some Kansas officials who attended the summit, that shortage is happening now, and they are taking steps to deal with it. Tom Huntzinger, with the Kansas Department of Agriculture, which regulates the state's water resources, said a moratorium on the issuance of permanent permits for new deep-aquifer wells recently was adopted for Cherokee and Crawford counties in Southeast Kansas. "This has got our attention," Huntzinger said. "The water users down here in Southeast Kansas requested the moratorium because they are concerned about decreasing water levels." Kansas law permits the department to regulate how much water can be taken from the ground. Missouri has no such law.

Regional Water Summit Set (12/05/2004) A technical study, conducted nearly three years ago by Wittman Hydro Planning Associates, of Bloomington, Ind., found that public, agricultural and industrial wells are drawing more and more water from the Ozark Aquifer. If the current trend continues, the region could face a water shortage during a drought in as few as 10 years.

Water Study Set to Begin in April (02/19/2004) U.S. Sen. Jim Talent pledged his cooperation Wednesday to a local group that is attempting to find a way to ensure that an adequate and affordable supply of water exists in the region in the future. Talent, R-Mo., met with members of the Tri-State Water Resource Coalition, which is composed of water suppliers, city officials and residents from Southwest Missouri, Southeast Kansas and Northeast Oklahoma. The meeting was held in the offices of Missouri-American Water Co. in Joplin.

Geologist: Water Flowing Too Freely Lacking (02/15/2004) Missouri water laws have no enforcement teeth, and regulations to govern water use are not expected until water shortages impact at least half of the state, accpording to Jim Vandike, a geologist with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey and Land Survey at Rolla.

Groundwatersupply Oustripped by Residents' Usage (11/16/2003) The Tri-State Water Resources Coalition was established in June to address a problem most people in the area don't even know exists. Some time back, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources held a meeting in the area to discuss the fact that our groundwater supply is not keeping pace with our usage. Missouri-American Water Co. then commissioned a study by Dr. Jack Whittman of Whittman Hydro-Planning Associates.

Coalition Ponders Water Summit (10/21/2004) Joplin soon could be the site of a water summit, possibly the Ozark Aquifer Water Summit. The Tri-State Water Resource Coalition, which is made up of water users, suppliers and area communities, is exploring the idea of staging a daylong meeting to bring state and federal officials to the table to talk about water.

MOARK's Day 3, Day 4 of Appeal Hearing

Day three and four of MOARK's appeal hearing took place Thursday, October 13, 2006 and Friday, October 14, 2006, at the Neosho City Hall Council Chambers. This was a continuation of the proceedings which were held, September 28 and 29 at the US District Courthouse in Springfield, MO. The Neosho Daily News, and reporter Wes Franklin, provided a thorough summary of the proceedings.

Thursday, October 13, 2006: (1) Dr Riley Needham, PhD. and (2) Bill Miller testified on the possible transfer of contaminants found in poultry manure to the waterway. (3) Dan Hudgens, MOARK VP of Operations was questioned about the composting facility located north of the Hathaway Farm. He confirmed that the composting facility has been used to process manure from MOARK's Anderson Farm.

Friday, October 14, 2006: (4) Hugh Vogle-MOARK's Bi-Product Manager for Southwest Missouri testified on topics ranging from MOARK's composting facility, just north of the Hathaway Farm to the company's land application of litter. Vogle testified that all litter produced by MOARK 7 farms is hauled north of the Spring River and spread there, at a two-ton-per-acre limit. (5) Tony Dohman, Water Protection Program, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), testified that "he didn't know if seepage of contaminants would necessarily be considered a violation by MOARK of water quality standards outlined in the permit, as it would be hard to prove once the contaminants were in the soil and unseen."

The hearing is to be continued. It is scheduled to reconvene in Jefferson City on October 24, 2006 at 8:30am, Truman Building, Rm No. 520.

Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Local MOARK Expansion vs. MOARK (Day 2)

On Thursday, September 28, 2006, and Friday, September 29, 2006 the case of Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Local MOARK Expansion vs. MOARK was heard by Judge June Doughty of the State Administrative Hearing Commission, in Springfield, MO. The scene was described this way,

"In what would seem like insurmountable odds, six Neosho residents without legal counsel took on the attorneys of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and MoArk, LLC at a hearing held September 28 and 29 in the U.S. District Courthouse in Springfield with the case yet to be concluded. What the residents, most living within a few miles of the egg-laying facility known as MoArk 7, were attempting to do was to stand up against the MDNR's granting of permit MO-0122840 for the operation and eventual expansion of the MoArk controlled animal feeding operation. The1-A CAFO would sanction as many as 3.6 million chickens in an area currently holding a bit more than a third and the eventuality of producing 135,000 tons of litter annually" by the Joplin Independent, Monday, October 2, 2006.

The participants at the trial, included:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Harry Bozoian, Asst. Attorney General
Camille Dobler, DNR Air Inspector
Leanne Mosby, MDNR Deputy Division Director

Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Local MOARK Expansion (SWMCALME)
Peter Boyt
Rick Bussey
Dave Boyt
Lee Van Otterloo
Robert Carter
Richard Betz

MOARK
Robert Brundage, Attorney for MOARK

At the close of Friday's hearing not all of the petitioners and their witnesses had testified, so Judge Doughty continued the hearing to October 12-13, 2006 at a location in Springfield, yet to be named, The Joplin Globe reported Friday, September 29, 2006 and Saturday, September 30, 2006.

Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Local MOARK Expansion vs. MOARK

Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Local MOARK Expansion are opposed to an expansion of MOARK Production Inc's egg operation near Neosho (Newton County) MO. The group appealed the State's issuance last year of two permits to MOARK. The company obtained construction and operating permits to expand its operation with 1.3 million chickens to 3.9 million chickens. Five of the 13 new houses, with a capacity of200,000 layer chickens each, have already been built. The Joplin Globe, September 22, 2006

The groups appeal was set to be heard, September 28, 2006 by the Missouri Administrative Commission in Springfield, MO. The group met on Thursday, September 21, 2006, as a last minute effort to settle differences and avoid the administrative hearing. Those residents representing the group, Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Local MOARK Expansion (SWMCALME), included Richard Betz, Rick Bussey, Dave Boyt, Peter Boyt, Lee Van Otterloo, and Robert Carter.

MOARK offered (1) to limit the number of chickens at the operation to 3 million layers and 218,000 pullets; (2) to compost at the operation no more than 10% of the amount of manure produced there; (3) to put in writing for the first time, what it plans are forphasing out older chicken houses at the MOARK Seven Farms as the new houses are built; and (4) to allow Newton County health Department to inspect records of operations.

SWMCALME asked that (1) the size of the operation be capped at 2.6 million layers and 140,000 pullets; and (2) that the company halt composting of manure.

There were 38 odor complaints registered with Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in August 2006. MOARK's composting of manure at Sevin Farms is a primary issue because it is the source of most of the odor pollution, according to SWMCALME. The group suspects that MOARK wants to keep the composter in operation so that it can transport manure from its poultry operation at Anderson (McDonald County) MO. to Neosho for composting.

Clarification of Purcell (Jasper County) Landfill Status

The Joplin Globe reported Tuesday, September 19, 2006 that a change in ownership has been approved, but that action has not cleared the way for development to start at a proposed landfill north of Purcell, a state official said Monday. "We have approved the change in corporate control, but nothing else at this point," said Jim Bell, chief of engineering for the solid-waste-management section of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

Action by the state approves ownership of the site by Enviro-Site Management Inc., a firm formed by Advantage Waste Inc., a Springfield-based waste-hauling company that originally purchased the landfill site from Allied Waste Inc. Bell said the action does not clear the way for the firm to begin development of the landfill, because the state has not approved a permit modification aimed at changing the sequence in which the landfill would be opened and operated. And, he said, the firm must successfully complete a yearlong groundwater demonstration project to answer questions about the groundwater level at the site..

This article clarifies a KSNF television report made on Friday, September 15, 2006, which stated that the application had been approved. Environmental Battlefields in Missouri blog.

Dennis Wilson Doesn't Understand What all the Fuss is About

The Pittsburg Morning Sun led with a headline, Talking Trash, Monday, September 18, 2006, describing the clash over the proposed landfill on state line. Dennis Wilson doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. He is part owner of Environmental Recovery Group LLC, the group pursuing a permit for a Barton County (MO) landfill northwest of Mindenmines, Mo.

The (Monday, September 18, 2006) article follows another article, Q&A: Dennis Wilson, Environmental Recovery Group, dated Sunday, September 17, 2006, in which Pittsburg Morning Sun Staff Writer Kevin Flaherty described the interview he had with Barton County Commissioner (and part owner of Environmental Recovery Group LLC), Dennis Wilson. Commissioner Wilson said that the landfill is opposed mostly by people from outside the area, including interlopers from Joplin. Commissioner Wilson got irritated with the reported for asking questions, stating that he has been answering questions about the landfill for twelve years, citing a newspaper article in 1996. He accused the newspaper reporter of trying to bait a crowd, replying that this is not a fly-by-night deal.

Southwest Regional Landfill Approved

KSNF TV Joplin (MO) reported on their Friday, September 15, 2006 evening news that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) had approved the application, clearing way to begin cosntruction on the Southwest Regional Landfill at Purcell (MO).

A controversial landfill has been approved to open in the four states.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has approved a landfill that will be located just north of Purcell. The owners met with county commissioners this morning to go over the county requirements for the project. The county is discussing landscaping the area to hide the waste and also installing fencing. "The folks who oppose the landfill are not going to be happy no matter what we do if the landfill goes in. It looks like it`s inevitable, it`s going in. So we just do what we can to try to make it as presentable as possible," said Chuck Surface, Japser County Commissioner. No hazardous waste will be dumped at the site. The landfill is expected to operational in November of next year.

Crawford County (KS) Commissioners Weigh In on Landfill

Crawford County (KS) Commissioners discussed the possibility of a landfill going in near Mindenmines (MO) during their regularly scheduled meeting on Friday, September 8, 2006 (Girard, KS). The concern was State Line Road, which runs along the Kansas-Missouri border. "I have some concerns about the road that would be used," Commissioner Tom Moody said. "That road is maintained by us and we get very little help from the adjoining county." Other commissioners agreed. "I think that is a legitimate concern and we need to look at it," Pichler said. The road would be used by heavy trucks transporting material to the landfill. "We just did overlay on the road and those trucks could tear it up," Moody said. "That road is just not built for that." Commissioners also questioned the need for a landfill in Mindenmines. "We have a landfill that is only about five miles away, so I don't understand why it is necessary," Pichler said. Emerson told the commissioners that the county has started to look into possible issues if the landfill is placed across the border in Missouri. "We are trying to give them every concern that we have, but it is a Missouri issue," Emerson said. Commissioners directed County Surveyor Ron Albertini to survey the road and the viability of having heavy truck traffic.

Pittsburg Morning Sun, Saturday September 9, 2006,

Contact Information

Questions and comments regarding the proposed Mindenmines landfill (ERG Mindenmines, Job No. NJ06MMLF) may be sent to:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Solid Waste Management Program
PO Box 176
Jefferson City, MO. 65102

Updates and the status of the Construction Permit Application can be obtained directly from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Status of Solid Waste Permit Applications webpage.

MDNR Reviews Everything Except What is Important

Mindenmines, MO. More than 40 residents from the Mindenmines area and others from as far away as Joplin and Lamar (MO). attended the public meeting on the proposed landfill, Tuesday, September 5, 2006. One resident expressed disappointment with potential oversight by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), noting that officials said that the State does not review any potential effect on property values, and does not address economic considerations, choice of location, or planning and zoning issues. "MDNR reviews everything except what is important," said Carol Cignetti Gaskill.
The Joplin Globe, Landfill Meeting Draws Concerns, Wednesday, September 6, 2006

Who was there:
John Stockdale, Barton County Commissioner
Dennis Wilson, Barton County Commissioner
Environmental Recovery Group, LLC - Dennis Wilson, investor
Rod Ellis, MDNR, Environmental Engineer
Charlene Fitch, MDNR Permits Unit Chief
J.C. and Sons Waste Management, Inc. Oklahoma

Local resident Dave Keller summed up the meeting, saying that (Dennis) Wilson should listen to the voices of the attendees in the City Hall. " I think that if you look around the room, most of the people here don't want this. You're on the hot seat. You treat people with respect, and you will get it."
Pittsburg (KS) Morning Sun, Landfill Meeting Gets Heated, Wednesday, September 6, 2006

Mindenmines & Environmental Recovery Group, LLC

What about ...the traffic, the noise, the odor, the blowing trash, the trash trucks, the detrimental effect, the waste seeping into the ground, the roads, the land values, the quality of life, and the benefits? These are concerns that area residents had prior to a public hearing, facilitated by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), set for Tuesday, September 5, 2006 at City Hall, 613 Main Street, Mindenmines, MO.

The Project is proposed by Environmental Recovery Group LLC, seeking a permit for a sanitary landfill in a former strip mining area northwest of Minednmines. The application to build the 36.8 acre landfill on a 193 acre site was filed on June 28, 2006. The proposed landfill would be used for nonhazardous municipal trash. The site is an inactive coal strip mine area about one mile north of US Highway 160, adjacent to the Missouri-Kansas state line.

The landfill is proposed by a group of investors including Dennis Wilson, a longtime member of the Barton County (MO) Commission. Wilson said that the group has plans to use the site as a landfill, then turn it into a wetland and wildlife area. the application proposes disposing of 1,000 tons of waste per day, and estimates that the site would be in operation for 8 1/2 years.

The Joplin Globe Concerns Piling Up Over Proposed Landfill and The Joplin Globe Landfill Proposal Subject of Public Meeting, Monday September 4, 2006

ODOR is a four letter word!

Recently, Environmental News Network ran a story titled, Northeast Missouri Becomes Latest Battleground over Hog Farms. The article quotes Mr. Dick Lawler, as saying that he won't surrender Mark Twain Lake, a recreation and drinking water resource for 21 comunities in northeast Missouri, to a hog farm proposed nearby. He is leading the fight to stop what he calls a "declared war on our lake" by corporate interests. He fears contamination, odor and loss of the community's quality of life.

Northeast Missouri is one of the nation's latest flashpoints over corporate hog farms as agribusiness giants aggressively market opportunities to farmers looking to hold on. Cargill says that it wants to sign up 30 farmers a year in northern Missouri, western Illinois and southern Iowa to raise company-owned hogs closer to Cargill processing plants in Ottumwa, Iowa and Beardstown, IL. Each slaughters 18,000 hogs a day.

What Cargill hadn't counted on in its business plan was the resistance from northern Missouri. More than a dozen Missouri Counties have passed, and others are considering, health ordinances that control for odor and particulates, and require bonds, fees and annual inspections. The article quotes Cargill spokesman, Mark Klein, "We've not seen anything like what we've seen here, this domino effect of counties establishing de facto moratoriums." Marlin McCormick, who runs a grain elevator in Monroe City said that "Odor is a four letter word in this part of the county..." In Marion County, plans for a 7,490 hog farm collapsed under pressure of opposition from the Village of Emerson (population 60), when the producer withdrew his permit application.

Another Landfill, Barton Co., MO

If it looks like a skunk, if it smells like a skunk, if it behaves like a skunk, it is probably a skunk. When a group of investors, calls themselves Environmental Recovery Group, LLC of Liberal, MO (ERG), the name conjures up a group of conscientious environmentalist. Guess again. The group has filed an application to build a 36.8 acre landfill on a 193 acre site, 1.5 miles northwest of Mindenmines, MO.and 1 mile north of US Highway 160, adjacent to the Missouri-Kansas state line in Barton Co., MO. They want to fill up an old strip pit with sanitary landfill. The Joplin Globe, Monday, July 17, 2006 reported on the application.The article quotes Dennis Wilson as a spokesman for the group. He is also a longtime member of the Barton County Commission.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Status of Solid Waste Permit Applications indicates ERG Mindenmines Pre - Public Participiation. Will likely hold hearing on draft permit. Follow-up to pre-application meeting held 09/28/05. Application anticipated in 2005. The MDNR site hasn't been updated since November 21, 2005. The application proposes disposing of 1,000 tons of waste in the landfill per day, and estimates an opeating life of 8.5 years.

Water pollution + Odor = Doing Business in Missouri

May Belle Osborne of Neosho, MO. shared her perspecive of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in a recent Letter to the Editor, The Joplin Independent. The title says it all!

When is a Landfill a Junkyard?

The Carthage Press, Thursday, June 1, 2006, reports that Jasper County Commissioners plan to classify the proposed Purcell landfill as a Junkyard. A Missouri State Statute gives Counties some regulatory control over junkyards, "in the public interest to regulate and restrict or prohibit the establishment, operation and maintenance of junkyards in areas adjacent to the interstate and primary systems of highways."

The Jasper County Commissioners originally sought help from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to force installment of a 200 foot setback and/or a screen fence around the entire landfill. MDNR Director Doyle Childers told the Jasper County Commissioners that the decision wasn't in his jurisdiction, and referred them to the Missouri Department of Transportation (MDOT). According to the regulation, junkyards within 200 feet of any state or county road are in violation and subject to fine. Junkyards must have a 200 foot setback or be screened from the road by a tight board or screen fence not less than 10 feet high.

According to the article, Jasper County Attorney, Dean Dankelson, planned to send Craig Post, President of Enviro-Site Management, LLC, a letter, dated June 2, 2006, advising him of the County's plan to designate the site as a Junkyard.

Golden Oval Eggs, LLC buys MOARK Liquid Egg Division

The Neosho Daily News, Friday, May 25, 2006 reported that Golden Oval Eggs, LLC-Renville, MN. has purchased MOARK's Liquid Egg Division. MOARK (Land O Lakes) will continue it's production and marketing of their shell egg operations.

SW Regional Landfill (Google Earth) view

This is what the track of ground looks like (today), before excavation begins on the proposed landfill. [Located in Section 34, Township 30 North, Range 32 West, Jasper County, Missouri. Southwest Regional Landfill Permit No. 109702. 640-acre facility boundry, 106-acre waste boundry, proposed 17,100,000 cubic yards of refuse excavation capacity.]

Who's Who on the Purcell Landfill Battleground

FOR
Southwest Regional Landfill, Inc.
Enviro-Site Management, LLC (a Delaware Company)
Big Red Holdings, LLC (a Delaware Company)
Advantage Waste Service
CHP Investments
CHP Environmental
Black Oaks Organics
Craig H. Post
Lori Post
Cornelius H.Post
Joe MacDonald
RFC-BRH, LLC. (a Delaware Company)
Republic Financial Corporation
Donald F. Barrickman
W. Randall Dietrich
Robert S. Possehl
Charles W.'Chuck' Singleton
Ian Massey
Paul O. Mason
DeAnn Brunts
Stuart M. Scales
Gary R. Burghart
Jeanette M. Hillhouse
Paul Rouse
April Ingram, Atty.
Dwayne A. Fulk, Atty.
Andrews Environmental Engineering
Karl W. Finke
Doug W. Mauntel

AGAINST
Citizens for Environmental Safety
Barbara Hunter
Roy Sprenkle
Mark Russell
John Price, Atty.
Sherry Garvin
Jasper County Commissioners
Chuck Surface
Jim Honey

NEUTRAL
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Doyle Childers
Jim Bell

Today's Headlines for Purcell Landfill

Here are links to today's headlines, following the Purcell (Jasper County) Landfill Public Information session held Thursday, May 25, 2006 in Newton County (Joplin), MO.

Opponents Swarm Landfill Meeting, The Joplin Globe, Friday, May 26, 2006

Letter to Editor, The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Who is running Southwest Regional Landfill, Inc. ?

Just exactly who is running the Southwest Regional Landfill, Inc.? Information disclosed in the Permit Modifications for Southwest Regional Landfill, Inc. included officers of the corporation. Perhaps not by coincidence, they are exactly the same officers as those disclosed for Enviro-Site Management, LLC. (a Delaware Company) and Big Red Holdings, LLC. (a Delaware Company).

They are:
Chairman of Board, Donald F. Barrickman
President, Craig H. Post
Vice President, W. Randall Dietrich
Vice President, Robert S. Possehl
Vice President, Charles W. 'Chuck' Singleton
Vice President, Ian Massey
Vice President, Paul O. Mason
Vice President of Development, Joe MacDonald
Vice President of Operations, Cornelius H. Post
Treasurer, De Ann Brunts
Assistant Treasurer, Stuart M. Scales
Secretary, Gary R. Burghart
Assistant Secretary, Jeanette M. Hillhouse

Public Information Session on Purcell Landfill

What: Public Information Session (regarding Purcell Landfill)
Where: Ramada Inn, 3320 S. Range Line Road, Joplin, MO.
When: Thursday, May 25, 2006, 4:00pm to 7:00pm
Who: Enviro-Site Management (formerly know as Advantage Waste Services-Springfield); Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc; Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR); Citizens for Environmental Safety

This is all about a 107 acre landfill, to be located on a 640 acre site, near Purcell (corner of Jasper County Road 210 and County Highway M), Missouri. According to Jim Bell, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Chief of Engineering - Solid Waste Division, "Our regulations require that if the site is permitted longer than five years, and they decide to build, they have to go through steps, including a public-information session, where they'll solicit public comments and respond."

Some Questions that need to be asked:
1. Has Enviro-Site Management LLC ever owned or managed a landfill previously?
2. Why has the application been changed again, from Advantage Waste Service to Enviro-Site Management, LLC?
3. Has the property been inspected by a geologist or hydrologist to evaluate the impact of the propsed landfill on the existing land topography and acquifer?
4. Why approve a landfill when one exist 20 miles north of the proposed site?
5. What authority does MDNR have to approve the permit, when each of the County Commissioners and County Attorney are on record opposing the permit?
6. What authority does MDNR have to ignore the State Statute for required fencing setback (200 ft.) for the proposed operation?
7. Has the USGS conduucted a site survey of the proposed site?
8. What authority does MDNR have to stipulate (or restrict) the geographic area from which material could be dumped in the proposed landfill?
9. What records does Enviro-Site Management LLC have for substantiating it's willingness to abide by regulations, respond to customer problems or State inquiries?
10. If the MDNR does not have the authority to re-examine the geology of the proposed site, who does? Methodology for conducting site conditions have changed since the proposed site was first approved (in 1995). Secondly, the conditions of the aquifer and the Spring River Watershed have changed since the proposed site was first approved (in 1995). Who has the authority to issue a stay of execution on the permit until the matter is resolved?
11. If Jasper County has determined that the propsed site will create a traffic hazard, who has the authority to put a stay of execution on the permit until the matter is resolved? How can the MDNR approve a Permit that subsequently will create a problem for the Missouri Department of Transportation (MDOT)?
12. Why is the Public Information hearing not being held in Jasper County? What are the requirements for setting the location for the Public Information hearing?
13. Is the Public Information Meeting for the benefit of the "engineers for the landfill and representatives of Missouri Department of Natural Resources" or for the residents living in the proximity of the proposed landfill?

Recent Purcell Landfill Headlines

Landfill Focus of Meeting, The Joplin Globe, Sunday, May 21, 2006

In Our View: DNR Response, The Joplin Globe, Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Despite Protests, Landfill Transfer on Track, The Joplin Globe, Friday, May 12, 2006

DNR Regulatory Power Limited on Landfill Issue, The Carthage Press, Thursday, May 11, 2006

Landfill Information Kept in Webb City, The Joplin Globe, Sunday May 7, 2006

MOARK's Official Notice of Violation

The Neosho Daily News, Wednesday, February 7, 2006, reports that MOARK has received an Offical Notice of Violation from Misouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), based on a December 9, 2005 excess emissions violation.

Can You See Though a Landfill?

The Joplin Globe, Sunday, February 5, 2006, in a Front Page story titled, Foes of Landfill Plan for Battle, and The Turner Report, Sunday, January 8, 2006, articles titled, Timing of Jasper County Landfill is Suspicious and Documents Cloud Advantage Waste Issue, describe a situation that is at best, suspicious, and at worst, fraudulent. Here are the facts, according to the three articles:

(1) Craig H. Post said that he and his father Neil Post (Cornelius H. Post) formed Advantage Waste Service to buy properties that were being divested from Allied and BFI.
(2) The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in their July 20, 1999 Court Order required Allied Waste Industries, Inc. to divest itself of certain properties and businesses, including its option on the Southwest Regional Landfill (aka Purcell Landfill), as part of its purchase of Browning Ferris Industries (BFI). That order was to prevent Allied Waste Industries, Inc. from establishing a waste disposal monopoly. The final modification to the Divestiture Agreement was dated August 9, 2000. Two days later Advantage Waste Service and C.H.P. Investments, Inc. were created.
(3) On August 11, 2000 Craig H. Post registered a new company, Advantage Waste Services with the Missouri Secretary of State.
(4) On August 11, 2000, Neil Post (Cornelius H. Post) registered a new company, C.H. P. Investments, Inc. with the Missouri Secretary of State.
(5) The original July 20, 1999 Court's disposal order included the following:
* Allied's option to purchase the proposed Southwest Regional Landfill
* Allied's Tate Transfer Station, located at Route 2, Box 69, Verona, MO. 65769
* Allied's commercial routes that serve the City of Springfield, and Green and Christian Counties.
(6) The Turner Report reported that Craig H. Post, owner of Advantage Waste, actually worked for Allied Waste after the court order, and that Advantage Waste and C.H.P. Environmental were registered with the Missouri Secretary of State, only after the Court Ordered settlement was finalized.
(7) On June 19, 2001, a financing statement, in the name of Tate's Transfer System and Craig H. Post, was filed with the Missouri Secretary of State, listing the address for both parties as 1688 Farm Road 65, Springfield, MO.
(8) Another document on file with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources lists Post's company, C.H.P. Environmental Inc, as "formerly known as Tate's Transfer."
(9) If C.H.P. Environmental Inc. and Tate's Transfer Systems, Inc. are the same entity, then it appears that C.H.P. Environmental Inc., Tate's Transfer Systems, Inc. and Allied Waste Industries, Inc. have been, and continue to be affiliated, in violation of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Divestiture Order.
(10) On June 9, 2000, American Disposal and C.H.P. Investments entered into an agreement that "shall commence as of the effective date of three months following the date the Southwest Regional Landfill, located at Missouri State Highway M, Township 30 North, Range 32 West, Section 34, in Jasper County, Missouri, is opened. If the Southwest Regional Landfill is not opened by the fourth anniversary of the effective date, C.H.P. shall have the option to extend this agreement for up to six additional one-year terms for a total term of 10 years if all options are exercised, provided however, any then current renewal term and all subsequent options shall terminate three months after opening of the Southwest Regional Landfill."
(11) The contract was entered into on September 29, 2000, according to court documents. The four years ended on September 29, 2004, and a lawsuit was filed about eight months later.
(12) Advantage Waste Service, C.H.P. Investments Inc. and C.H.P. Environmental Inc., all owned by Craig and Neil Post, were named in a lawsuit by American Disposal Services of the Ozarks and BFI Waste Systems of North America, filed June 1, 2005, US District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
(13) BFI Waste Systems of North America alleges that Advantage Waste Systems violated its contract with American Disposal Services of the Ozarks and BFI Waste Systems of North America by failing to pay more than $460,000 in fees for dumping waste at landfills and transfer stations owned by them.
(14) The lawsuit was originally scheduled for trial on August 28, 2006.
(15) On December 22, 2005, the plaintiffs (BFI Waste Systems of North America and American Disposal Services of the Ozarks) filed a motion asking for a delay in the case, noting that a settlement efforts were underway between the two sides. Among reasons for the settlement, it notes that American and C.H.P. Investments on or about November 30, 2004, were among parties entering into an agreement "regarding certain transactions between parties" with a contemplated closing date of December 30, 2005.
(16) December 21, 2005, Craig H. Post filed registration papers for Advantage Waste Service, Inc. a company wholly owned by A.W.S. Holdings, Springfield, indicating that Craig post was President.
(17) December 22, 2005, a new company, Advantage Waste LLC was registered with the Missouri Secretary of State.
(18) Court documents indicate that Craig Post and his companies entered into the contract with American Disposal Services of the Ozarks and BFI Waste Systems of North America on September 29, 2000. "In exchange for the payments to plaintiffs, C.H.P. Investments and its affiliates were able to dispose of up to 700 tons per day of certain waste at plaintiff's landfills and transfer stations."
(19) The motion further stated, "The agreement provides that the debt, which is at issue in this case will be paid by mid-February 2006". Should the parties consummate this term of the agreement, plaintiffs will then file a motion to dismiss the case."
(20) The Court on January 10, 2006 agreed, and ordered that all deadlines in the case be stayed, pending settlement efforts through the end of February.
(21) Craig Post said that the landfill purchase and the lawsuit are unrelated. "It is a separate issue with disposal at Allied facilities which stems back to 2000."

What do you think? Can you see through this landfill deal?

What is a Polluting CAFO Worth?

The Neosho Daily News, January 30, 2006 reports that Land O'Lakes of Arden Hills, Minn has purchased the remaining interest (that it did not already own) in MOARK LLC for $71,000,000. According to the article, Land O'Lakes bought the 42.5% minority stake from Osborne Investments, Inc.

Missouri SB615 (aka 2006 Photo Ban Bill)

The Joplin Independent, January 29, 2006, reported that controversy is spreading regarding SB 615 (aka the 2006 Photo Ban bill) introduced by Senator Bill Stouffer. SB615 is now in the hands of the Judicial and Civil & Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the Missouri Legislature.

A summary of the bill follows: SB 615 - The act extends the "Animal Research and Production Facilities Protection Act" so that its provisions apply to all agricultural research and production facilities. For example, the act covers agricultural production involving forestry products, horticulture products, and tobacco as well as products derived from livestock and other farm animals [including CAFOs].

The act adds to the list of punishable offenses perpetrated against such facilities: 578.407 1. No person shall commit, attempt to commit, conspire to commit, or knowingly allow to commit, any of the following: (9) ...any photographic, video or electronic image of such objects or the facility.

MO Agricultural Committee says Not This Year

The Kansas City Star, January 19, 2006, reported that Missouri House and Senate agriculture committee leaders, Rep. Peter Myers and Sen. Dan Clemens, conducted a joint hearing Wednesday night, January 18, 2006, where they announced that they would not pursue a measure (called "Livestock Enterprise" legislation) that would have barred local governments from enacting restrictions beyond those of the state Department of Natural Resources. Key legislators want to wait at least another year before deciding whether counties should be allowed to place tighter restrictions on livestock feeding operations than those in place for the state.

In the meantime, Rep. Kathy Chinn and Rep. Peter Myers have asked the Food and Agriculture Policy Reserach Institute to provide documentation of economic and environmental opportunities of livestock and grain agriculture within each county of the state of Missouri. The Hannibal Courier Post, January 20, 2006.

Carla Klein, Chapter Director for the Sierra Club said, “This was truly a victory for the democratic process. Citizens put their elected officials on notice, the corporate lobbyists are not who they work for. Missouri communities come before the wishes of corporate donors.” The Joplin Independent, January 29, 2006.

Shelby County, MO

Shelby County (MO) residents 'call the pervasive odors a public health threat, leading to respiratory illnesses and mood disporders, not to mention plummenting property values.' Shelby County Presiding Commissioner Chuck Wood, said that he is caught in the middle of the county health ordinance debate, "They don't want to limit growth; they don't want a health ordinance, but they sure as hell don't want a hog farm next to them without a say in it." He said that after meeting with legislators in Jefferson City last week, Shelby County will put the health ordinance on hold pending state action. "It's an issue that has to be addressed in rural Missouri."

The Joplin Globe, Sunday, January 29, 2006, Hey What's That Smell: Missouri Counties Struggle to Keep a Tight Lid on Livestock Odors

Highway Signs Work!

Opponents to the MOARK (Newton County) CAFO erected a sign along Highway D, south of Neosho, advertising the telephone number for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in order for residents to call and make odor complaints. According to Victoria Lovejoy, a MDNR public information specialist, previously the MDNR averaged six calls per month regarding MOARK odors. Since the sign went up, they have been getting over 30. In December they received 35 complaints. She added that from January 1, 2005 through January 20, 2006, the MDNR received 76 complaints and 70% of those complaints were made after the sign went up. The Sign Works!
The Joplin Globe, Sunday, January 22, 2006, Highway Sign Caused Spike in MOARK Complaints

More Headlines

The article in The Joplin Independent, Friday, January 20, 2006, provides a great summary, photgraphs and chronology of the visit to Neosho by Mr. Clint Barnett of the Missouri Attorney's General Office.

MOARK on Radar of MO Attorney's General Office

Mr. Clint Barnett, an environmental investigator for the office of Missouri Attorney's General, Jay Nixon, was in Neosho (Newton County) Missouri this week to check things out. A spokesman for Mr. Nixon, Mr. John Fougere, said that Mr. Barnett's visit to Neosho was routine, "He was doing routine follow-up to a consumer complaint about odor." The Joplin Globe, Friday, January 20, 2006, reported in a front page article that Mr. Barnett met with opponents of MOARK's expansion project, including Mr. Rick Bussey and Mr. Mark Adams. Mr. Bussey said that "He (Clint Barnett) was down here doing some investigating, meeting people, seeing what was going on. What I got from Mr. Barnett is that he feels his boss will be back down here with him. After the conversations that he had with different businesses and individuals, he has got to come back."

Bussey said that Barnett was referring to Mr. Bill Bryan, deputy chief counsel of the Agriculture and Environmental Division for the Attorney's General Office. He said he initially contacted Mr. Bryan to complain about odor and other problems allegedly affiliated with MOARK's large egg producing operation. He said that he was asking for the attorney general involvement with MOARK, the way the attorney general got involved with odor problems stemming from Renewable Environmental Solutions (RES) in Carthage. Bussey asked them "If you can do that for the people of Carthage, why can't you do this for me and the people who live around here?"

Newton County Health Board

The Newton County Health Board is proposing a 'health ordinance' that would (1) restrict the amount of odor a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) operation could give off, (2) how much animal waste could be disposed, and (3) require fees for operating permits. They define a CAFO as 'an operation at which animals are kept and fed for 45 days or more in a 12-month period, in a confinement area that has less than 50% ground cover of vegetation'.

The Board met Monday, January 9, 2006, at the Newton County Health Department (Neosho, MO). Opponents to the proposed regulation were Farm Bureau and University of Missouri Extension Service. Supporters (about 30 attended the meeting) said that: Farm Bureau has become a pawn of big business and they described the area as becoming an environmental catastrophe because of CAFOs taking advantage of relaxed regulations. Local resident and supporter of the proposed ordinance, Don Bushnell, said that he doesn't believe promises of stricter adherence to state standards will make a difference. "You can put chickens in a gold cage, but they still stink!"

The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Purcell Landfill Ownership Transfer

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has published the procedures for the ownership transfer of the Jasper County Landfill. Because it has been more than 5 years since MDNR isued the original landfill permit, the interested party, Advantage Waste Services (Springfield, MO.), must hire a professional engineering consultant to review the landfill plans. It is also the responsibility of the new owner to hold a public awareness and community input session, for the purpose of soliciting comments from local citizens and respond to those comments.
Anyone with questions regarding the landfill design or the transfer of permit process should contact MDNR's Solid Waste Management Program at 1-800-361-4827 or (573) 751-5401. Questions regarding the storm water permit should be directed to MDNR's Southwest Regional Office at (417) 891-4300. http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr06_010.htm

SWMCALME

Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Local MOARK Expansion (SWMCALME) submitted an affdidavit to the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission (MAHC) on Tuesday, January 3, 2006, defining their organization as an 'unincorporated association', for the purpose of appealing the approval of the operating and construction permit granted to MOARK on November 1, 2005 by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). SWMCALME is waiting for the MAHC to reschedule their appeal hearing. SWMCALME, on behalf of the 3500 petitioners against the approval of the operating and construction permit, has requested that MAHC hold the appeal hearing in southwest Missouri, and preferably in Neosho, MO.

Let's get behind SWMCALME. They need and deserve our support! You can contact them at SWMCALME, P.O. Box 176, Neosho, MO. 64850, or by e-mail .

Missouri CAFO Updates

1. MDNR Draft CAFO Operating Permit, http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/pn/G010000.pdf

2. CAFO's in EPA Region 7, http://www.epa.gov/region7/water/cafo/are_cafos_in_r7.htm

3. CAFO Guidelines and Regulations, http://www.cnmpwatch.com/mo.php

Recent MO Landfill Permits

1. Norborne, 3 miles NE. (Carroll County), Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc (AECI) http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_500.htm

2. La Grange, 2.5 miles SW.( County, BFI Waste Systems of Missouri, LLC, a subsidiary of Allied Waste North America, Inc., http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_499.htm

3. Sedalia, 3 miles W.(Pettis County), Waste Corporation of Missouri Inc., http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_235.htm

4. Buckner, 3 miles N. (Jackson County), Aquila Inc., http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_166.htm

5. Wright City (Warren County), Bob's Home Service (BHS), http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_096.htm

Purcell (Jasper County) Landfill Battleground

Citizens for Environmental Safety (CES) are gearing up for an Environmental Battle in Purcell (Jasper County) MO. Recently there was an article about Advantage Waste's (Springfield, MO) plans to open a landfill. They already have obtained the 'option to purchase' a 640- acre site, presently owned by Allied Waste Services, Scottsdale, AZ.

This site was identified in 1991 and an application was filed for a permit to construct a landfill, by developers. The permit was issued in 1995 by Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), but had been amended seven times by the developers during the review period. The landfill 'site' was sold to American Disposal Services in 1997. Allied Waste Services, which owns the landfill in Wheatland, KS., acquired an option to buy the Jasper County site in 1998. In 1999, Allied Waste Services moved to acquire the waste hauling company Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI). To win Justice Department approval of the deal, Allied Waste Services ageed to sell some of its operation in areas including Joplin, Lamar and Springfield. BFI owned the landfill at Lamar (Barton County) MO at the time. Under the terms of the anti-trust judgement, the Justice Department said that Allied Waste Services, if it acquired BFI, could not operate landfills at Columbus (Cherokee County) KS and Lamar (Barton County) MO, and continue to own and operate the landfill near Purcell (Jasper County), MO. The Joplin Globe, Sunday, January 8, 2006. http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=219259&c=87

Let's get together and support Joe Heger (Chairman) Citizens for Environemtal Safety and the Purcell area residents. CES will hold it annual meeting at 7:00pm, Saturday, Feb. 4 in Alba, (Jasper County), MO.

Mr. Craig H. Post, President & COO
Mr. Neil Post
Advantage Waste Service, Inc.
2211 W. Bennett St.
Springfield, MO. 65807
417-886-8700
www.advantagewasteservice.com

88.3% Value Diminution from CAFO

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values, Abstract, by John A. Kilpatrick
The Appraisal Journal, July 2001,Volume LXIX Number 3
http://www.pmac.net/AM/property_values.html

University of Missouri Study:
Following the methodology of the Minnesota study, researchers at the University of Missouri were able to quantify both the average value impact of a CAFO and the impact by distance. An average vacant parcel within 3 miles of a CAFO experienced a value loss of about 6.6%. However, if that parcel was located within one-tenth of a mile from the CAFO (the minimum unit of measure in the study) and had a residence on it, then the loss in value was estimated at about 88.3%.

Summary and Conclusions:
The above suggests that the establishment of a CAFO may result in value diminution to other nearby properties. The amount of the value loss is typically an inverse function of distance (closer properties diminish more), a function of property type (newer, nicer residences lose more), and a function of property use (farm will lose value due to diminished productivity and comparative marketability to other farm lands). While the appraisal profession has only begun to quantify the loss attributable to CAFOs, it is clear from the above case studies that diminished marketability, loss of use and enjoyment, and loss of exclusivity can result in a diminishment ranging from 50% to nearly 90% of otherwise unimpaired value.

John A. Kilpatrick is a partner and senior analyst with Mundy Associates, LLC, an economic, market, and valuation firm specializing in complex real estate matters headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Contact: Suite 200 Watermark Tower, 1109 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. (206) 623-2935; fax: (206) 623-2985; email: john@mundyassoc.com.

Model Ordinances for CAFOs

The State Environmental Resource Center (www.serconline.org) has posted these links on their website. These are sample ordinances, concerning CAFOs, which local communities can adopt or modify to fit their needs. They address how to regulate CAFOs, from setback distances to water and air pollution limits.

1. Schwab, Jim. “Planning and Zoning for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” Chicago, Illinois: APA Planning Advisory Service, 1999. See Appendix B – Sample ordinances.

2. Hanson, Andrew C. and Melissa K. Scanlan. “Model Livestock Zoning Ordinance: The Balance Between Environment, Economy, and Agriculture.” Madison, Wisconsin: Midwest Environmental Advocates, Inc., 2002.

NRDC's Missouri CAFO Contacts

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), lists the Missouri Activist Contacts for CAFOs. They are:

Hobart Bartley
Route 2, Box 2281
Anderson, MO 64831
Phone: 417-775-2844
e-mail: rbartles@netins.net

Rolf Christen
Citizens Legal Environmental Action Network (CLEAN)
Route 1
Green City, MO 63545
Phone: 660-874-4714
Fax: 660-874-4711
e-mail: chrifarm@nemr.net

Scott Dye
Ken Midkiff
Missouri Sierra Club
914 N. College Avenue, Suite 1
Columbia, MO 65201
Phone: 573-815-9250
Fax: 573-442-7051
e-mail: scott.dye@sierraclub.org
ken.midkiff@sfsierra.sierraclub.org

Rhonda Perry
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
1108 Rangeline Street
Columbia, MO 65201
Phone: 573-449-1336
Fax: 573-442-7051

Terry Spence
Family Farms For the Future
RR2, Box 147
Unionville, MO 63565
Phone: 660-947-2671
Fax: 660-947-3873

Natural Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org

Five Local Strategies to Keep CAFO's Out

The Sierra Club lists five local strategies to keep CAFO's out. Here they are:

1. Use the public comment and review process.
2. Organize a Friendly Letter from the Neighbors.
3. Press for County Health Ordinances.
4. Use the "threatened or impaired watersheds" process.
5. Sue them.

For more information about these successful strategies, click the link Sierra Club Clean Water and Factory Farms, Resources.

CAFO's and Sierra Club

Here are some constructive recommendations from the Sierra Club to stop pollution from CAFOs,

1. Place a moratorium on new and expanding factory farms until all existing facilities have Clean Water Act permits and new pollution control rules are in place.

2. Require factory farms to obtain individual, site-specific Clean Water Act permits, including comprehensive nutrient management plans, to provide nationally consistent protections.

3. Mandate full public participation in all aspects of Clean Water Act permitting and enforcement.

4. Ban new open-air manure lagoons and aerial spraying of liquid wastes and phase out existing lagoon/sprayfield operations.

5. Place legal and financial responsibility for waste disposal and cleanup on the corporations that own the livestock animals.

Sierra Club's Clean Water and Factory Farms Reports and Factsheets

MOARK Retains Former MDNR Director

The Joplin Globe, Saturday, January 7, 2005, reports that the former Department of Natural Resource Director, David A. Shorr, has been retained to represent MOARK in its proceedings with MDNR after the company was cited for an odor violation on December 22, 2005. Mr. Shorr is with the law firm of Lathrop & Gage, Kansas City. Mr Shorr served as Director of MDNR under the late Gov. Mel Carnahan. He also served as the Missouri Director of Environmental Quality for former Gov. John Ashcroft.

Mr. Steve Feeler, Chief of Enforcement, for Missouri's Air Polution Control Program, said that Mr. Shorr, had filed on behalf of MOARK, a request that the state extend the deadline to January 31, 2006, for MOARK's response to the violation. The request was granted.

[On December 22, 2005, MOARK LLC was issued a citation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) for alledged violations of odor emissions after results from a December 9, 2005 test taken by MDNR, came back positive.

The "problem" in question mostly stems from excessive smells originating from the plant's compost facility on Route D. After receiving complaints, the MDNR investigated foul odors near MOARK on November 30, December 2, and again on December 9, 2005. Although excessive odor emissions were discovered during the December 2 test, the results were not admissible because the air sample was taken along Route D in the immediate vicinity of MOARK's composting facility, where the company owns both sides of the highway. Previous litigation forbids testing without the owner's permission.

A subsequent sample, taken on Missouri National Guard property, near MOARK, on December 9, 2005, showed excessive odor emissions. Upon confirmation by the St. Croix Sensory lab in Lake Elmo, MN, the MDNR issued its December 22, 2005 citation. MOARK had 15 days to respond to the allegation. The Neosho Daily News, January 5, 2005]

Missouri Senate and House Bills filed

A review of Missouri Senate and House Bills filed the first week of the 2006 session:
1. Senate Bill 591, Sen. Gary Nodler, modifies the law relating to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and the penalties for offenses perpetrated by these operations.

County Health Ordinances

The following are the twelve Missouri Counties that have passed Health Ordinances, placing guidelines on the construction of CAFOs:
Adair, Caldwell, Camden, Harrison, Henry, Knox, Linn, Livingston, Petis, Platte, Schuyler and Scotland.
Here is a link to a map of the Missouri Counties that have already enacted Health Ordinance regulations, Township Zoning and Planning or County Zoning Ordinances, http://agebb.missouri.edu/commag/permit/restrictions.asp. The site also provides the Health Ordinance regulation language, that each county used. I have set up a link to this University of Missouri webpage, on the right.

The following are Missouri Counties, currently discussing language for Health Ordinances:
Jasper, Macon and Newton. If there are others, please add them to the list! It is important to publicize and support these positive initiatives.

MOARK LLC (Newton County, MO Battlefield)

No environmental battleground is better organized that the Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Local MOARK Expansion (SWMCALME), Neosho, (Newton County) MO. http://ozarkclearwater.com . This is about chickens, and MOARK's attempt to increase it's operations from 2.6 million to a 5 million chicken CAFO. But it is about a lot more, too. The residents in Jasper, Newton and McDonald Counties are justly concerned about their air quality, their water quality and the potential contamination to their land. Late last year, and earlier this year, communities in Kansas and Oklahoma rejected MOARK's plans to expand in those states because MOARK had violated Missouri environmental laws for years.

To view a summary of MOARK’s abysmal environmental record at its three existing Missouri operations, click on the links below:
MOARK 7 complex, Newton County
MOARK Anderson complex, McDonald County
MOARK Topnotch complex, Jasper County

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Director, Mr. Doyle Childers, approved MOARK's application to expand its operation on November 1, 2005.

I have set up a link to Southwest Missouri Citizens Against MOARK Expansion initiatives, to the right.

MO Farm Bureau Legislative Agenda

The Missouri Farm Bureau lists their (2005) legislative initiatives for livestock regiulations:
1. We believe regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations should be limited to state jurisdiction only.
2. Missouri Farm Bureau needs to work to find a solution to eliminate county health ordinances. They not only add one more layer of regulations on livestock producers, but will eventually drive the livestock industry out of the counties so affected and very possibly the whole state.
3. If a county considers a county health ordinance that would be stricter than state regulations pertaining to livestock operations, we support requiring the county governing body to consult with the local soil and water district board to ensure that decisions are based on sound, scientific principles.
http://www.mofb.org/LA_Policy.htm

Guide to Confronting a CAFO

I found this Guide to Confronting a CAFO extremely helpful in understanding the dynamics and strategies of an Environmental Battlefield. http://www.factoryfarm.org/guide/index.html
The Guide includes several important subjects, again helping you get up-to-speed on the topic. There are many helpful hints, too. The subjects include:
1. Educate yourself
2. Organizing your community
3. Gathering information
4. Plan a campaign/Develop your strategies
5. When the going gets tough
6. Press and media
7. Fundraising
8. Next step
I have also set the Factory Farm website up as a link, to the right.

What Are the Issues?

(1) Tina Herleth, LaPlata, President-Citizens Against a Polluted Environment (CAPE) detailed the difference between family farmers and corporate farmers. "Real family farmers give more back to the land than they take. They care for their animals, their neighbors and their community. We worship God, not money." In contrast, corporate hog owners don't even live in the state.

(2) John Ikerd, PhD., Agricultural Economist, University of Missouri-Columbia, College of Agriculture, Food and natural resources, called the economic benefits from corporate agriculture a "fallacy" stating that "the county eventually suffers long-term negative impacts."

(3) Mike Whitlock, M.D., (Schuyler County) confirmed that the documented health concerns are real and very serious. He explained that 'the sewage from 8,000 hogs is equivalent to 20,000 people, however, the sewage from corporate farms is untreated in open lagoons, exposing the community to a myriad of toxins.'

(4) Missouri Attorney General, Jay Nixon, said "I oppose legislative attempts to strip local government of the authority to regulate mega-farms, which can contain hundreds of thousands of hogs or other livestock. If officials at the local level determine that they want to have tougher standards for cleaner air or water for their constituents, they should have the right to do that. That right should not be taken away by state legislators who are swayed by multi-national agricultural corporations".

(5) Jim Libby, Linn County MO Commissioner, said that it was necessary for his county to step up and pass a county health ordinance to protect their citizens from factory farm pollution. He warned that special interest legislators, influenced by big hog money, were going to try to take away the county's right for local control again this next legislative session. "We need to be ready to fight for the right for local control when the session begins in January."

Missourians for Local Control is a network of organizations and individuals who believe that decisions about our communities should be made at the most local level possible, the level that at which the very people who are impacted can best participate. The above issues were raised by panelists at Truman State University, at an event, "Confined Animal feeding Operations Fact vs. Fiction", sponsored by Missourians for Local Control. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/ra05/mlc1_05.html

Missouri Rural Crisis Center

The Missouri Rural Crisis Center (MRCC) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1985. It is a progressive, statewide membership organization that works to empower farmers and other rural people. The mission of MRCC is to preserve family farms, promote stewardship of the land and environmental integrity, and strive for economic and social justice by building unity and mutual understanding among diverse groups, both rural and urban.
Email: info@morural.org
Address: Missouri Rural Crisis Center, 1108 Rangeline St., Columbia, MO 65202.
Phone: (573) 449-1336, or Fax: (573) 442-5716.

The MRCC has a great website, with references to nurmersous articles and publications on farming issues, http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/rural.html#Anchor-Feature-47857. You can get to them either by clicking on the above link, or www.morural.org. This is a good site to bookmark, for getting up-to-speed on the environmental farm issues in Missouri.

Where Do We Begin?

The Kansas City Star, Friday, December 30, 2005, http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/13512361.htm, includes an article about corporate agriculture in Missouri, and what is likely to be the biggest environmnental battleground of 2006. The article mentiones several goups that are already organized and attempting to educate Missourians about the situation, the problems, and some solutions. They include Missouri Rural Crisis Center (MRCC) and Citizens Against Polluting the Environment (CAPE).

The Kirksville Daily Express, Friday December 30, 2005, includes an article about Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) in northeast Missouri. The article mentions other groups trying to promote environmental conciousness, practices and stewardship, including Missourians For Local Control (MFLC).

As we reflect on 2005, now is the time to begin planning for 2006. Obviously, there are initiatives underway to promote education, the environment and what is right for Missouri and Missourians. By collaborating, by communicating and by coordinating efforts and initiatives, we will be more successful in cleaning up what has already happened, and preventing problems in the future. What can you do help Missouri? Are you ready to get involved? I am!