THIEME DRIVE - SAFE FOR NOW

Quite some time ago, I wrote about Thieme Drive and the St. Marys River, both of which are within a few dozen feet of my front door. In July 2003, we experienced what was labeled a “100-year” flood event with the St. Marys cresting at its highest level ever at 21.20 ft. on July 9, 2003.

After the waters had receded, the City requested that the United States Army Corps of Engineers undertake a Section 205 Study. Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended, provides authority to the Corps of Engineers to plan and construct small flood damage reduction projects that have not already been specifically authorized by Congress. The City made such a request and the Corps submitted the Section 205 Study results in February 2005. The Study was released just a month after the third highest crest of the St. Marys at 19.06 ft. on January 14, 2005.

The Study identified four areas that had flooded in July 2003 that were not protected subsequent to the Flood of 1982 and its aftermath of building berms, levees, and walls. One of those areas was the Thieme-Berry area, with the suggestion made by the Corps to place an 1100-foot wall along Thieme Drive. The Study noted that not many homes in the Thieme-Berry location were impacted. After the release of the Section 205 Study, the City decided to go ahead with meetings to obtain input from the public on the four sites analyzed by the Corps.

Thus, began my fight against “the wall.” I attended meetings that were held not only in my neighborhood but also in other neighborhoods included in the Study. I wrote to the City numerous times, and I attended my neighborhood association meetings to ask for help in fighting the wall. The West Central Neighborhood Association was and has been extremely helpful, and we sent two letters to the City to let them know that a wall was not wanted.

All I could envision during this time were the monstrosities along St. Joseph Boulevard in the Lakeside area and along Camp Allen Drive in the Nebraska Neighborhood. Camp Allen Drive intersects with Main Street just across the Main Street bridge. The homes on Camp Allen Drive face a wall along the west side of the river, and driving along Camp Allen is like driving in a tunnel. The same can be said for driving along St. Joe Boulevard from Tennessee Avenue to the Columbia Avenue bridge. The traffic lanes restrict motorists, edging the drivers against the Wall in the traffic lane closest to the wall heading toward the Columbia Avenue bridge.

Concrete wall along Camp Allen Drive

_________________________________________________________

In a charrette held this past summer, a number of West Central residents impacted by the flooding of the St. Marys gathered with representatives of the City to discuss options to help with the flooding. No one supported an 10-foot wall, much to my relief. Those of us who actually suffer the flood waters stated that the water comes through our basement walls as the water filters through the ground. When I flooded in July 2003, I only had about an inch or two of water in my basement - most coming from oozing through the northwest corner of my basement wall. My home also sits at the low point on my side of West Berry, so the flow of water is naturally to my home and its foundation.

After much discussion, what was settled on as a consensus was a 4-foot wall with intermittent columns where barricades could be lowered into place to block the flood waters. These plans were then carried to the City by the two city employees who had facilitated the charrette.

I still did not want a wall of any type. Erecting even a 4-foot wall would have meant destroying the river bank environment since any wall would have required setting foundations in place deep in the ground. Trees would have been removed, many of them decades old. I realize to some this is not important, but we have very few river drive views left in Fort Wayne. Many once-visible river banks are now hidden either behind concrete walls or earthen levees and berms.

After the charrette, the City took soil borings, and, much to my delight, found that Thieme Drive is mostly fill with no way to support the footings that would be necessary for any type of wall. The City has determined that it would not be cost effective to go forward with a wall given that only a few homes are impacted by the flooding.

While I was elated at this news, it does not mean the fight is over. The City could place the project in the hands of the Army Corps of Engineers. But if the Corps becomes involved, it will trigger a Section 106 review. The following are the mandates of Section 106:

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires consideration of historic properties in the thousands of federal actions that take place nationwide each year. The law and regulations require federal agencies to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or Tribal Preservation Officer and give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment before projects are implemented. The Section 106 process also provides for public input in the decision making.

This is relevant to Thieme Drive because Thieme Drive has been included in a multi-property document filed with the state and national historic registers, thus providing protection of a historical nature. Let me explain a little about the historic nature of Thieme Drive.

Thieme Drive History

Thieme Drive is named after Theodore F. Thieme, an early Fort Wayne entrepreneur who started the Wayne Knitting Mills and who donated the home where the Arena Dinner Theatre is located. He was also active in city improvement projects and was an early supporter of the beautification of our rivers. The overlook at the junction of Rockhill and Thieme Drive was built by Mr. Thieme on what was an old dump site. He donated his home to be used as an art studio, and it now houses the Arena Dinner Theater. One of my prized possessions which I found at the Hyde Brothers Book Store is a personally-autographed book of Mr. Thieme’s life titled “Theodore F. Thieme: A Man and His Times” by Ross F. Lockridge. I cannot help but think from reading the book that Mr. Thieme was a true “renaissance man.”

Around 1907, the citizens of Fort Wayne combined their effort with the local government to implement plans to beautify their city. The first plan was submitted by Charles Mulford Robinson of New York in 1909. This plan was followed by a park and boulevard plan by noted landscape architect George Kessler in 1911. The Plan highlighted and capitalized on the city’s most important and significant asset - its three rivers and the opportunity they presented.

After the Flood of 1913, the River Improvement Association was formed to review options for control and prevention of floods. The existing River Front Commission hired Kessler to supervise the work of revising the park system and beautifying the river banks. Kessler’s plan called for connecting the nine miles of rivers running though the city via parkways and boulevards.

The 1912 Kessler Park and Boulevard System for Fort Wayne included Present Parks and Parkways, Proposed Parks and Parkways, and Proposed Boulevards. A parkway includes the river, its bank, public green space along the bank, the vehicular drive along the landside of the green space. At the time of the Plan, the city had only two lengths of existing parkway:

• one running along the east bank of the St. Joseph River south from the Tennessee Boulevard to link to the Maumee River at its confluence, and
• one associated with Thieme Drive, along the east bank of the St. Marys River extending south from Main Street to Swinney Park.

The river drive along St. Joe Boulevard is encased on the river side by a cement wall over which no one can see from the street. Thieme Drive is the only river drive left of the original Kessler Plan. It is also one of the few drives left in Fort Wayne where motorists can actually drive right along the river - a rare sight indeed in today’s Fort Wayne landscape of berms, levees, and concrete walls hiding our rivers from view.

But Thieme Drive is neglected. Its river side is overgrown with unsightly brush and weeds and Trees of Heaven, which grow quickly and overtake almost any area they invade. The Drive is need of upkeep and care - it needs cleaned and weeded. The River Greenway runs alongside the river, but no formal path exists - I don’t know why because one could surely be established. This would require turning Thieme Drive into a one-way running from Washington Boulevard to Main Street, but that could be accomplished.

So, as I leave my home each morning and turn onto Thieme Drive and drive along the river, I breathe a sigh of relief - Thieme Drive is safe for now. I can only hope that somehow, someway the powers-that-be will soon look at Thieme Drive in a new light - a light that sees it for what it is - an historic river drive in need of care and attention to turn it into what could be a beautiful reminder of the man who gave it its name - Theordore F. Thieme.

RANDOLPH COUNTY RISES TO THE CHALLENGE - IMPOSES CAFO MORATORIUM

Randolph County commissioners have made a decision to impose a moratorium on CAFOs. Recall that originally the county planning commission had voted to allow 75% of Randolph County agricultural land to be open to the construction of CAFOs.

The ordinance then went to the county commissioners for discussion and vote. None of the three commissioners supported the ordinance as it was presented, so their vote to reject was unanimous; however, each voted against the ordinance for a different reason.

Commissioner Ron Chalfant, a farmer who is also a member of the planning commission - excuse me, but that seems like a built-in conflict of interest - opposed a setback change that had increased the setback requirements from 750 feet to 1320 feet. The setback is to allow for adequate “breathing” space between homes and CAFOs.

Let me digress a bit here. How is that a member of the planning commission can vote to make 75% of Randolph County fair game for CAFOs and then be allowed to vote on that ordinance as a commissioner? If I were a Randolph County resident, I would be demanding an explanation and asking that Chalfant be prevented from voting on either one commission or the other on the CAFO issue. He may not currently own a CAFO, but he may very well be looking to the future with his votes.

Commissioners Kathy Beumer and David Lenkensdofer also objected, but on grounds of what they saw as omissions. They are concerned with protection of air quality and water quality as well as zoning protection impacting land resources.

According to IDEM spokewoman, Amy Hartsock, Randolph County already has 43 confinement operations: 30 CAFOs and 13 CFOs. The distinction between the two is size. CAFOs are the largest of the group and usually contain thousands and thousands of animals. But convincing officials to impose a moratorium can be a tough sell; after all, agriculture plays a major role in Indiana economics.

Add the pressure of Daniels and Skillman, who both have made no secret of their efforts to double hog production in the next few years, and taking any negative action against CAFO construction becomes a hot political issue subject to pressure from the Governor and his minions.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) pretty much gives a pass to CAFO applications as long as the applications are correct and include the requested checklist of items. To counter the rubber-stamp process of IDEM, the only viable option county officials may have is to impose a moratorium until thorough studies of the effects of CAFOs on land, air, and water resources can be undertaken.

This is not a “war” between agriculture and everyone else. This is a health and quality of life issue that needs to be dissected and studied. These huge industrial factory farms spew out millions of pounds of waste a year. That waste, with all its toxins and bacteria, has to go somewhere. That “somewhere” is on land, either by the spraying method or by the injection method. By whatever method it is placed on or in the land, the potential for harm is great to underground water supplies through soil absorption and filtering or to above ground water resources through runoff.

The other aspect of CAFOs is the air quality that exists both in the operation itself and the surrounding area. A study by University of North Carolina researchers found that people living near large hog farms suffer significantly higher levels of upper respiratory and gastrointestinal ailments than people living near large cattle farms or in non-livestock areas. An Iowa study found that neighbors of hog facilities had respiratory problems similar to those of workers in hog confinement operations (e.g., bronchitis, asthma, upper-air inflammation, and a flu-like illness).

One-quarter of all swine confinement workers experience chronic health effects, such as bronchitis. This illness is found more than twice as often in workers in confinement buildings as those who work in traditional hog production.

While CAFOs continue to spring up in almost all Indiana counties, at least Randolph County officials are seeing the light by imposing a moratorium on CAFOs. Their role, as commissioners, is to protect the residents of their county as fully as possible - not to allow the policies of Daniels and Skillman to trump the health and quality of life of their constituents.

Photo Credit: Factory Farming Campaign of the Humane Society of the United States

Pigs are treated as meat-production units on industrialized factory farms and confined in barren, filthy pens until they reach slaughter weight.

Photo Credit: Factory Farming Campaign of the Humane Society of the United States

Inside barren, restrictive gestation crates, pregnant pigs are unable to turn around—or even move more than a step or two. For nearly four months, they languish in these cruel enclosures.

WATCHING THE WATER RISE

We have had quite a bit of rain in the last week - either in the form of light snow, rain, or ice. Since I live right across from the St. Marys River, and I flooded in July 2003, June 2004, and January 2005, I tend to keep my eye on it. After going through three floods in a year and a half, I have learned the “dynamics” - if you will - of the river and when I need to worry.

I have learned that if it rains fairly heavily for days in a row with no letup, then I probably am in trouble. If, however, a day or two goes by with no rain, then I breathe a sigh of relief because I know the river will slowly lower. I watch the ups and downs of the river as it adjusts itself to try to carry off excess water.

Across from my home yesterday- the river still has about two feet to the edge of the road - not to worry yet!

 

Today - a little higher - still not worrying too much, but it would be nice if the rain let up.

 

Looking west - a little more leeway - obviously not real flowers in the porch boxes!

 

Even though it can be agonizing watching the weather and wondering when the rain will stop, I wouldn’t trade my home for anything.

And, now that the City has determined that it can’t build a wall cost effectively to protect only four or five basements - something I had argued to them for about three years - Thieme Drive is safe for a little longer. Until they try to bring in the big boys that is - the Corps of Engineers. But that is another post.

EPA TO HOLD HEARING ON U.S. STEEL “PERMIT TO POLLUTE”

The Environmental Protection Agency will hold a public hearing today in Gary on its objections to a proposed state permit on the amount of pollution U.S. Steel can discharge into Lake Michigan.

The EPA blocked the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for U.S. Steel in October, saying the permit approved by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management had flaws.

Among the problems cited by the EPA:

• IDEM gave U.S. Steel five years to limit discharges of several pollutants — including the cancer-causing chemical benzo(a)pyrene, cyanide, copper, zinc, ammonia and mercury - despite the Clean Water Act’s requirement of compliance as soon as possible.
• The permit allows increased discharges of certain pollutants and establishes new limitations for others. It is not clear that these increases are appropriate under state standards.
• The Clean Water Act requires facilities to minimize adverse environmental effects of cooling water intake structures. The EPA says the permit does not contain conditions to ensure the requirement is met.

U.S. Steel and various environmental groups plan to comment today on the EPA objections, and IDEM officials plan to attend the hearing.

 

Picture from U.S. Steel Home page

An EPA Regional Administrator said the public hearing was scheduled after receiving dozens of requests from members of Congress, the city of Chicago and the public about U.S. Steel’s emissions into the Grand Calumet River, which flows into Lake Michigan.

The Grand Calumet River, originates in the east end of Gary, Indiana, flows 13 miles (21 km) through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond, and drains into Lake Michigan via the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal, sending about one billion gallons of water into the lake per day.

 

Indiana Harbor - Photo from the USACE

View of industrial area on the Grand Calumet River.

Photo from the EPA’s site on Great Lakes Pollution Prevention and Toxics Reduction

Interestingly, IDEM has been involved in a “Grand Calumet Feasibility Study” to clean up what is, according to IDEM, “one of the most polluted waterways in the Great Lakes Basin area.” However, the Study does not cover the easternmost five miles of the river and the western half of the west lagoon because they are included in U.S. Steel’s cleanup projects. The assumption, I suppose, is that U.S. Steel will do the “right thing.” Kind a like the fox guarding the chicken coop.

Tom Anderson, executive director of Michigan City-based Save the Dunes Council, said the fact that the EPA heard the concerns of environmental groups and the public and objected to the permit was a major victory.

The EPA’s decision blocking the permit came in the wake of public outrage over the state granting BP’s Indiana refinery a permit in June that allowed it to increase its average daily discharges of ammonia into the lake by 54 percent and increase the amount of suspended solids by 35 percent.

Environmentalists said the permit amounted to a reversal of decades-long efforts to reduce pollution in Lake Michigan, and it threatened the drinking water supply for Chicago and other cities in Illinois and Indiana. In August, after weeks of criticism, BP said it would find a way to comply with the lower ammonia and suspended solids discharges set in its earlier permit or cancel its planned $3.8 billion expansion. Environmental groups said they believe EPA’s response to the U.S. Steel permit was due at least in part to the outrage over the BP permit.

After that, the EPA will review the comments for an unspecified time. The EPA will then respond to the comments it receives and could either inform IDEM that it reaffirms its objections, modifies its objections, or withdraws its objections.

If EPA reaffirms or modifies its objections, IDEM will have 30 days to send EPA a revised permit that address its objections. If IDEM fails to submit such a permit, then the EPA would be responsible for issuing the permit to U.S. Steel.

Grand Calumet River in Indiana

Photo from EPA website

IDEM is the same entity which has relaxed rules in Indiana as they apply to CAFOs. Ironically, IDEM stands for the “Indiana Department of Environmental Management” - looks to me like they are managing our environment right into the dumpster.

But what can you expect when you have a governor who has tunnel-vision when it comes to big business and exploitation of the state’s environment and resources - and agencies which reflect the governor’s positions.

NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION INVADES INDIANA TO CONSTRUCT CAFOs

Randolph and Jay Counties have led the state’s expansion in adding swine last year to the area. Randolph County received permits to add 126,866 animals and Jay County received permits to add 47,800 animals. That trend is continuing based on Indiana Department of Environmental Management permit requests and approvals. What a shocker there!

IDEM is making sure that Daniels and Skillman reach their objective of doubling Indiana’s pork production in the next few years. The heck with the environment that is impacted by these industrial-sized factory farms, and the heck with IDEM’s obligation to protect our environment.

The CAFO free-for-all was triggered back in 2005 when Daniels and Skillman released their “Possibilities Unbound” plan which included the goal of doubling pork production for export. Assisting in Daniels’ and Skillman’s plans, just coincidentally, was the relaxation of time frames by the Indiana Department of Environmental Managment. Concurrently with the Possibilities Unbound plan, IDEM passed a regulation which gave CAFO operators, present and future, three additional years to formulate and submit their waste management plans.

Thus, from only 7 permit requests filed from January 1, 2003, up to January 1, 2006, the number of permits filed in 2006 alone jumped to 198 permits. Only 7 of those were withdrawn. Almost all - 77% or 144 - were approved by the end of the year. That means 144 factory farms added to the Indiana landscape.

But it isn’t enough that in-state operators are increasing at an alarming rate. Out-of-state corporations are also invading Indiana to set up CAFOs. And, why not? Indiana has very few, if any, restrictions on CAFOs at the state level or at the county levels. Last year, even though three different CAFO bills were introduced to address regulation, our Indiana legislators couldn’t agree on passage of any of them. Obviously, they didn’t think it was a major problem, and, why worry, there’s always another year to deal with it. Right?

North Carolina wised up and instituted a moratorium on the expansion of the hog industry. The state went from 2.6 million hogs in 1988 to almost 10 million today. North Carolina saw the issue of the mind-boggling amount of waste produced as a hazard that pollutes the water, air, and soil and endangers the public health.

Since North Carolina hog producers were stymied by North Carolina’s moratorium, they just decided to look around to see where they could plop down their industrial factory farms. And, you guessed it, what better place than Indiana with little or no restrictions, a governor and lieutenant governor who choose to ignore the environmental damage that can be done in their relentless pursuit of bringing Indiana into their vision of the “future”, and a legislature that bickers about the issue while more and more CAFOs spring up.

One North Carolina corporation is Maxwell Foods, Inc. of Goldsboro, North Carolina. It has plans for growth in Indiana by building three sow facilities in Randolph County. Each facility will hold 5,842 adult breeding females - that is a total of 17,526 breeding sows. Permits are already in hand to proceed with the three farms. In addition to the sow facilities, Maxwell was also issued permits for three nursery pig farms each holding 19,200 head - that is 57,600 nursery pigs.

Natural Pork Production ll (NPP II), an Iowa-based corporation, bought a sow farm in Indiana from a Crawfordsville operation which had a record number of manure spills and fish kills resulting in the loss of the producer’s permit and the eventual sale of the operation to NPP II - bet they got a good deal out of that. The company also has plans to obtain even more facilities in Indiana.

In-state and out-of-state operations are rapidly turning Indiana into one big industrial farm lot. Unless the legislature and the counties are forced to get off dead center by citizens, we will continue to be the refuge for those operations which can no longer operate in their home states. We will also continue to see an alarming increase in these operations scurrying to get their permit approvals before legislation can be passed to regulate them.

RANDOLPH COUNTY COULD ZONE 220,000 ACRES FOR CAFOs

Even though dozens of residents oppose the proposed ordinance, Randolph County commissioners do not care. The County Commissioners are on the way to adopting an ordinance proposed by the Area Planning Commission that would create a new intensive agricultural district covering about 220,000 acres of Randolph County.

Randolph County contains 289,813 acres, which means 75.9% of the county would be zoned for the industrial farms and 24.1% would be zoned residential only. The ordinance provides a buffer of one mile between CAFOs and cities and towns in Randolph County as well as a buffer of half a mile between CAFOs and residents of unincorporated communities, subdivisions, and heavily populated highways. That means more than 18,000 of the county’s 26,581 people would live within a half mile or a mile of a CAFO. That is not a great distance when looking at the smell, the transmission of dust and dirt through the air, and the potential pollution of land and rivers.

The map below is of Indiana and its major rivers. The increasing number of CAFOs will ultimately impact water quality all over the state.

The rush to date to construct CAFOs has been in the east central region of Indiana - just to the south of Allen County. Wells County now has 10 CAFOs, and Allen County is about to get its third CAFO. This issue is not going away, and, if you, as citizens of Allen County and of the State of Indiana, are concerned, then contact your county commissioners immediately to express your concerns.

SAVE THE VALLEY V. EPA - FEDERAL COURT SLAMS IDEM FOR IGNORING THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE IMPACT OF CAFOs

Those who support CAFOs argue that Indiana and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) have been good stewards of CFO and CAFO management, yet the federal district court for the southern district of Indiana has found otherwise.

The case is somewhat lengthy (18 pages without footnotes); however, it is a case that needs to be read for its analysis and criticism of Indiana’s failure to comply with the Clean Water Act’s mandate of an adequate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system of permits, which are required to be given to CFOs and CAFOs. After reading the case again for about the fifth time, I am even more convinced and disgusted that IDEM and its members have failed in their obligations to protect our Indiana environment and the rights of Indiana citizens to clean air, clean water, and clean soil. I hope, as readers, you have the time and patience to read my condensed summary of the case.

THE CASE

The full name of the case is Save the Valley, Inc., Thomas Breitweiser and L. Jae Breitweiser, Plainitffs v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman, in her capacity as Administrator of the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency, and David A. Ullrich, in his capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Defendants, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Intervenor Defendant.

Quite a lengthy caption, so let me explain briefly about the parties.

The Plaintiffs:

• Save the Valley: a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to protecting the environment.
• Thomas and L. Jae Breitweiser: owners of property who lived adjacent to a proposed CAFO.

The Defendants:

• Christine Todd Whitman: at the time of the lawsuit, Whitman was EPA administrator. She now is a partner in an environmental energy lobbying group working on behalf of businesses and corporations.
• David A. Ullrich: at the time of the lawsuit, Ullrich was the administrator of the EPA’s Region 5 offices which included the states of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and 35 tribes. Ullrich is now director of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, an effort by the region’s mayors to advance the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
• Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM): IDEM intervened as a defendant pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24. The rule allows certain groups, individuals, organizations, etc. to enter a lawsuit if they believe they have an interest that may be impacted by the court’s decision. In this case, IDEM was the manager of the NPDES permitting program.

Thus, the case proceeded with two plaintiffs - Save the Valley and the Breitweisers - and three defendants – Christine Todd Whitman as EPA administrator, David Ullrich as EPA Region 5 administrator, and IDEM as manager of the Indiana program in question.

CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Animal feeding operations – AFOs – are industrial farms that congregate animals, manure and urine, dead animals, and production into a small area of land. Not all AFOs are CAFOs since designation as a CAFO is based partly on their number of animals.

An AFO can be a CAFO when:

• It has more than a 1,000 animals, or
• It has between 300 and 1,000 animals and discharges pollutants through a man-made structure or into any waters that run through the facility or come into direct contact with the confined animals, or
• It has less than 300 animals but has been a significant contributor of pollution to the waters of the United States.

Treatment of animals and their waste products is based mostly on a cost-benefit analysis. Animals are generally kept in pens and are not allowed outside into fields or open pens. The floors are slatted so that waste can drop through the slats into a holding tank below the floor. The animals are confined 24-hours a day with the animals’ waste dropping into a huge tank to be disposed of at a later time.

The waste is then pumped from the underground storage tanks to lagoons – large above ground storage facilities capable of holding millions of gallons of liquid manure. From the lagoons, the waste is transported to be spread, sprayed, or injected onto or into croplands or pastures. The picture to the right is of a tank used for spreading manure and is euphemistically called a “honey wagon.”

Manure contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus; pathogens (disease-causing bacteria) such as e. coli; salts such as ammonia which can be caustic and hazardous; and heavy metal such as copper and zinc. While manure can be beneficial in appropriate quantities, over application can be hazardous. The quantities now being generated by the industrial-sized CAFOs are no longer in the realm of beneficial. And, unlike human waste, animal waste need not be treated.

The pollution that can occur from lagoon breakage or spillage or improper land application adversely impacts surface water, groundwater, air quality, and soil quality.

Because the trend in the past 20 years has been toward fewer and fewer but larger and larger operations, in 1999, the EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) implemented a Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. The strategy recognized the role played by these operations in the pollution of national waterways.

THE CLEAN WATER ACT – 1972

The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Prior to 1972, the states were responsible for individual programs establishing standards and regulations for water quality. The states were assisted by minimal oversight from the federal government. Today, the Act regulates all discharges of pollutants into waters of the U.S.

The regulatory mechanism for discharge is a federally mandated and supervised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. A state’s compliance with the Clean Water Act is determined by its compliance with the NPDES program. The permits impose limitations on the discharge of pollutants and establish related monitoring requirements.

The Clean Water Act assumes a partnership between the states and the federal government – cooperative federalism. Although the Act authorizes the EPA to issue NPDES permits, states may apply for and administer their own permit programs provided they comply with the Act’s detailed statutory and regulatory requirements.

THE CLEAN WATER ACT’S REGULATION OF CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS

The Clean Water Act prohibits “point” sources from discharging pollutants into waters of the United States unless the discharge is made in conformance with a valid NPDES permit obtained prior to discharge. Thus, operations intending to discharge certain materials into waters of the United States may only do so subsequent to proper application and granting of an NPDES permit.

A point source is defined as “any discernable, confined and discrete conveyance….from which pollutants may be discharged. Under federal law CAFOs, not AFOs, are point sources subject to the NPDES permitting requirements. Any CAFO that discharges or proposes to discharge must obtain an NPDES permit.

Permits are designated as either general permits or individual permits. A general permit is written to cover a category of point sources with similar characteristics for a defined area. An individual permit is issued to a specific operation and tailored to its pollution issues.

Since states have been authorized to create and manage appropriate permitting programs, the CAFO operation must apply to the state for either a general permit or an individual permit to address the point source issue. CAFOs are often given general permits because of the similarity of their operations. If the CAFO is covered by a general permit, it must submit a written “Notice of Intent” (NOI) which serves as a permit application.

Even though a CAFO may be covered by a general permit, the state may require an individual permit if:

• The operation is especially large, or
• The operation has a history of compliance problems, or
• The operation has some other exceptional characteristic

REGULATION OF CAFOs IN INDIANA

Indiana was one of those states which decided to create its own permitting program. In order to establish and administer the program, Indiana had to show that it had established sufficient legal authority to administer the program in accordance with federal law. In January 1975, the EPA approved Indiana’s proposed NPDES program. In April 1991, 16 years later, the EPA approved Indiana’s program for issuance and administration of general NPDES permits.

As required by the Act and federal regulations, Indiana regulations prohibited point sources from discharging pollutants into waters of the state without a valid NPDES permit. Yet, as of January 2002, IDEM – the agency in charge of issuing permits – had never issued an NPDES permit to a CAFO.

INDIANA’S PERMIT SYSTEM – DEALING WITH CAFOs

Indiana chose to deal with CAFOs through a system distinct from its NPDES point source permitting system. The state first enacted legislation in 1971 pertaining to the construction and operation of confined feeding operations. The Confined Feeding Control Act defined a confined feeding operation as:

• Any operation with confined feeding of more than 300 cattle, 600 swine or sheep, or 30,000 fowl, or
• Any operation with a history of pollution problems

But prior to 2001, Indiana did not require any confined feeding operations, including federally-defined CAFOs, to apply for or obtain NPDES permits. To add insult to injury, IDEM also failed to inspect CAFOs until 1999. Prior to 1999, Indiana had never pursued an enforcement action against any CAFO.

In 1997 – 25 years after the passage of the Clean Water Act – Indiana began to formulate new rules for confined feeding operations. The new rules were finally adopted in 2001, almost 30 years after passage of the Act.

The first individual permit for a CAFO in Indiana was publicly noticed in January 2002, a full 30 years after passage of the Act. Prior to that first public notice, Indiana had never issued a permit to a CAFO.

EPA KNOWLEDGE OF INDIANA’S NPDES AND CONFINED FEEDING PROGRAMS

The EPA had followed Indiana’s progress for some years, offering guidance as to the NPDES permitting process and its implementation. In November 1999, the EPA’s Region 5 office and IDEM entered into an Environmental Partnership Agreement. Through this Agreement, IDEM agreed that the Indiana Administrative Code would ensure that all CAFOs in Indiana would have a permit equivalent to an NPDES permit. Public input was sought in September 2000 by the EPA, who announced it would hold a public meeting.

In November 2000, after several back-and-forth communications and reviews, the EPA told IDEM that the proposed rule still did not meet requirements. Finally, in July 2001, the EPA told IDEM it was necessary for IDEM to implement and enforce the 25-year-old federal regulation that had been in place since the 1975 approval of the Indiana NPDES program.

Thus, in September 2001, IDEM told the EPA that it had passed “first-ever rules governing confined feeding operations in Indiana, implementing the state statute which has been in place since 1972.”

COURT FINDINGS

1. Indiana’s program had never been in compliance with respect to CAFOs
2. The EPA had engaged in significant efforts for at least three years to try to get Indiana to comply with federal law; nevertheless, IDEM failed to comply with federal law
3. IDEM should not have its program withdrawn at that time as requested by the plaintiffs
4. IDEM was given 120 days to adopt an option provided by the EPA to bring Indiana’s NPDES program into line with the Clean Water Act

The case citation is Save the Valley, Inc. v. EPA, 223 F. Supp. 2d 997 (S.D. Ind. 2002). For those of you who are not familiar with citations, go to the 2d series of the Federal Supplement and locate volume 223. Turn to page 997, and you will find the entire case. I have tried to condense the issues and facts to provide an accurate account.

The lack of care about our environment is egregious. The entire process, from the EPA’s failure to ensure that IDEM was in compliance with the federally-mandated NPDES permitting program to IDEM’s failure to guard the state’s environment by acknowledging the increasing size of point source operations in the form of CFOs and CAFOs is inexcusable. The harm to our environment is real, and IDEM’s relinquishment of its responsibilities on behalf of the citizens of this state is indefensible.

Although IDEM is now regulating CAFOs after three decades of neglect, the only action currently required at the state level is the application to IDEM for a permit. If all is in order, the application will be granted and a new CAFO will be constructed. Counties have not been able to step up fast enough to implement set back regulations or distance regulations.

Last year, the Indiana legislature failed to pass any legislation at all regulating CAFOs. Since counties have few rules or regulations as of yet dealing with CAFOs, it is up to our state legislators to step forward and pass legislation to regulate the increasing number of CAFOs. Unless concerned citizens take it upon themselves to become involved in this issue, odds are the legislature will again fail to pass laws regulating the ever-increasing number of industrial-sized farms with all their potential environmental hazards.

 

 

 

 

BLOWING THEIR TOPS - MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL

The federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) has proposed severely weakening a rule that buffers streams from the impacts of mountaintop removal mining — a form of coal mining in which entire tops of mountains are removed and the debris dumped in valleys and sometimes directly into streams. The new rule will result in polluted streams and decimated populations of fish and wildlife throughout the Southeast Rivers and Streams Ecoregion, one of the richest, rarest and most biologically important.

Since 1983 the current stream buffer zone rule has protected land within 100 feet of a stream from being disturbed by mining unless a company can prove it will not affect water quality or quantity. Under the proposed new rule, strip mine operators would have to show only that they intend to prevent, “to the extent possible using the best technology currently available,” such damage. If the new rule goes forward, coal companies will be allowed to dump massive amounts of waste directly into streams, destroying them completely.

Central Appalachia provides much of the country’s coal, second only to Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. In the United States, 100 tons of coal are extracted every two seconds. Around 70 percent of that coal comes from strip mines, and over the last 20 years, an increasing amount comes from mountaintop-removal sites.

Although Mountaintop removal is not permitted by the Clean Water Act, the Bush Administration has chosen to ignore the Clean Water Act and has encouraged strip mining companies to use the process.

Earthjustice, an environmental organization which fights legal battles on behalf of our environment, was recently successful in stopping the issuance of five permits. The federal judge in West Virginia ruled in favor of Earthjustice and declared five permits illegal. But that won’t stop the strip mining companies. What is needed is your voice to let your Congressional representatives know that you disapprove of this practice.

 

PIG PURGATORY

My title to my first, long ago posts on CAFOs was “Hog Heaven or Pig Purgatory?” I always thought it should be pig purgatory, and I now no longer have any doubts. This short post is about zoning and the lack thereof in reference to CAFOs.

I took the following steps to gather information about the newest CAFO in southern Allen County:

1. Contacted Thomas Park, IDEM, to request a copy of the application and manure distribution plan
2. Contacted the Allen County Department of Planning and spoke to two individuals
3. Contacted the Wells County Plan Commission (the manure is being distributed on Wells County land)

I found out a number of interesting and disturbing things. If the application meets with IDEM standards, then it will be approved. Unless counties have taken the initiative to pass a zoning ordinance specific to CAFO issues, they have little option other than to stand by while IDEM continues its plopping down of these environmental hazards in rural Indiana.

Allen County is one of those counties which has no ordinance specific to CAFOs. Although the county has a new plan called “Plan-It Allen”, it is only a suggested plan and is not law. Therefore, anything contained in the plan is merely what the proponents would like to see. The Plan states that it “provides a framework for future decision making” and that it is “advisory in nature”. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW.

What does have the force of law are the 1960s antiquated Allen County land zoning ordinances which do not take into account the agricultural phenomenon of CAFOs which have been sprung upon the state by Daniels and Skillman. The below is from the County’s website:

THE ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA,
ZONING ORDINANCE
ALLEN COUNTY CODE - TITLE 3
An Ordinance to limit, regulate, and restricts the development of the jurisdictional
area of the Allen County, Indiana Plan Commission by:
(1) Dividing said jurisdictional area into districts or zones which limit, regulate,
and restrict the location, height, bulk and size of buildings and other structures,
building lines, minimum frontages, depth and areas of lots, and percentages
of lots which may be occupied; the size of yards, courts, and other
open spaces; the erection of temporary stands and structures; the density and
distribution of population; the use of land, buildings, structures and premises
for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agricultural, public activities, and
other purposes;
(2) Showing said division of the jurisdictional area on a set of maps, adopted as
part of this Ordinance and entitled: “Zoning Map of the Allen County Indiana
Plan Commission’s Jurisdictional Area” dated February 2, 1960;
(3) Providing for the administration of this Ordinance, for fees for services in
connection therewith, and for the enforcement of these regulations;
Now be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Allen,
Indiana, under authority of Chapter 174, Acts of 1947, General Assembly of
the State of Indiana, and all acts amendatory thereto.

Although Allen County has not yet seen the explosive growth occurring in other counties, it may very well be coming. With no regulations to stop these factory farms and minimal notice requirements, look for CAFOs to begin to pop up in our rural areas.

Wells County - to the south of Allen County - is now home to 10 CAFOs. The individual I spoke to stated that counties have not been able to keep up - in other words to act fast enough to put restrictions in place. A CAFO can be approved in 30-45 days, a time period that is not amenable to holding public hearings and gathering input from the public.

What is really disturbing is that no public input is required for these factory farms - none, nada, zip. As I mentioned earlier, if the application is in order, the state will approve it without a second glance, and the affected county will have little recourse but to stand by and watch if the land bears the proper zoning classification.

The exclusion of public input is unacceptable. The public has every right to be involved in the process of CAFO permitting since the effects of CAFOs impact not only the particular CAFO owner and his or her environment but also the public through contamination of ground water reservoirs and surface water supplies such as our rivers.

I was instructed to contact Bill Brown, a county commissioner, to express my concerns about the issue of CAFOs and inadequate regulations. If anyone out there is as concerned as I am about the issue, please contact Mr. Brown to let him know your thoughts. The plan commission is charged with overseeing zoning regulations and use regulations. I intend to contact Mr. Brown this coming week. Action needs to be taken before Allen County becomes one large factory farm - and becomes just another link in the Daniels experiment of exploitation.

Next post - coming to your town - the Schuhler CAFO.

ANOTHER CAFO A COMIN’ - TO ALLEN COUNTY THAT IS

If you have followed my blog from its inception this past January, then you all know my intense dislike of these entities. They are simply large buildings which contain thousands of animals crammed into the spaces. The animals do not see the light of day - unless you count the windows (if there are any). The animals are fed hormones and antibiotics in addition to their daily ration of feed.

Well, get ready, another one is coming to Allen County. That makes a total of three to date if I have kept accurate account. Three may not sound like a lot of CAFOs, but Mr. Schuhler is increasing his “pig purgatory” from 900 pigs to close to 10,000 hogs. Each hog as it nears finishing weight is capable of producing close to 15 pounds of manure a day. Do the math - that is 15 x 9200 - not counting the 500 nursery pigs - or 138,000 pounds of manure a day - 50,370,00 pounds a year. Fifty million plus pounds of manure a year. Think about it, and,

IT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE, FOLKS.

The Google image following the public notice shows that the facility is located in southern Allen County southeast of the airport. What should be of major concern to the citizens of Allen County is its location near Snyder Ditch.

Liquid manure is stored beneath these giant confinement cages and is then hauled out to fields to be distributed onto the fields by a flying spray from a quaintly named vehicle - a honey wagon. The proximity of some of the fields next to the ditch means that runoff will occur into the waters of the ditch and, ultimately, into one of our larger river resources - the St. Marys River as it flows through southeastern Allen County. The St. Marys already has a higher than acceptable level of e. coli, and adding more to the river will further increase that level.

I would urge any concerned citizens to start contacting IDEM to express your concerns about the CAFO.

What irritates me in addition to CAFOs themselves is the idea that in order to view this document one has to make an “appointment” at IDEM in Indianapolis to see the plan proposed by Mr. Schuhler. I will be contacting IDEM to see if the document will be available here at an Allen County office for viewing. I will also be calling on the zoning board and the plan commission to see if they have a role in this environmental hazard.

PUBLIC NOTICE
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Eligibility for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit
Name and Address of Applicant:
Robert Schuhler, Owner Farm ID# 4942
Schuhler Farms
732 East - Hamilton Road
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46819
Location of Facility Applying for Permit:
Near the Junction of Hamilton Road and Conners Road, at approximately 732 East - Hamilton Road, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46819, in Section 25, Township 29 North, Range 12 East, in Allen County.

Background and Applicable Regulations
The above-named applicant operates an existing/IDEM approved confined feeding operation with two (2) buildings housing 500 nursery-pigs and 400 wean-to-finish hogs.

The above-named applicant proposes to construct two (2) 4,400 head capacity wean-to-finish swine confinement buildings. All buildings will possess a self contained concrete pit beneath slatted floors for the storage of liquid manure. The total capacity of this swine confinement operation will be 500 nursery-pigs and 9,200 finishing hogs. The applicant has submitted an application and a Notice of Intent (NOI) for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) general permit to comply with IC 13-18-10 and 327 IAC 15-15.

Public Review and Comment
This application is available for review in the Office of Land Quality, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana, Monday through Friday, excluding official holidays, between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. E.S.T. Please contact the Public File Room Clerk at (317) 234-0111 to schedule an appointment. An IDEM staff person is available to discuss the contents of the application with any interested party, either by telephone at (317) 234-1623, (800) 451-6027, extension 4-1623, or a visit to the office.
Written statements regarding the eligibility of the facility to operate under the general NPDES CAFO rule (327 IAC 15-15) may be submitted to IDEM.
Comments should be addressed to IDEM (address below):

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Thomas F. Park, Jr.,Ph.D.
Solid Waste Permits Section
Office of Land Quality
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
11–6 604165

The following image from Google shows the location of the proposed CAFO.

If you would like to take a Sunday drive, by all means, drive out to view the site of the newest Allen County pig purgatory. And, as you do so, you can thank Daniels and Skillman for this newest blight on our environment. They were the proponents of the “Possibilities Unbound” which established a goal of doubling pork production within the next several years. Looks like Allen County is a part of their plan, and, if we don’t want these operations in our backyard, then we better start doing something. If Daniels and Skillman have their way, these are a wave of the future and a disastrous wave at that.