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.