Food & Farming / News & Views / Articles from 1995 to 2012 / Case-by-Case Review: Michigan Department of Agriculture's Right-to-Farm Complaint Response System
Case-by-Case Review: Michigan Department of Agriculture's Right-to-Farm Complaint Response System
February 6, 1999 | By Patty Cantrell
Great Lakes Bulletin News Service
Complaint MDA Response Critique of MDA Response Type: Swine (250 sow farrow to finish) Location: Ottawa County Complaints: In ’90, ’91 and ’95 per manure runoff to ditch and county drain. Impacts: MDEQ letter on 11/13/95 to MDA indicate concerns for water quality: "...There appears to be very little land area available to irrigate the manure. I am deeply concerned about the potential of both groundwater and surface water degradation...." MDA does not consider MDEQ’s observation about possible lack of adequate land for manure spreading, that rain likely washed manure away before MDA’s visit, and that a history of complaints might point to a history of mismanagement. Lax response puts environment and operator at risk. Type: Beef (number not available) Location: Ottawa County Complaint: Per potential for nutrient and sediment deposition from uncontrolled cattle access to stream. Type: Dairy (~ 1,000 cows) Location: Allegan County Complaints: Several over more than 5 years per manure runoff to Red Run Drain/Little Rabbit River. Impacts: Biosurveys reveal few fish of any class for several miles downstream. In October ’97, spill of silage leachate and manure caused approximately 3 miles of Red Run to become septic (dissolved oxygen < 1 ppm. Standard is 5 ppm). Neither MDA nor MDEQ check to see if plans completed or implemented. Only after long-term pollution and catastrophic spill does producer start an adequate program of best management practices or invest in necessary facilities, such as storage for manure and silage leachate. Type: Dairy (number not available) Location: Allegan County Complaint: 7/8/96 per DeMann farm and two others as possible sources of runoff to Holt Drain/Fenner Lake. History of at least two other similar complaints to MDA since 1987. MDEQ disagrees. Reminds MDA that, on joint visit, they had identified four places from which polluted runoff was likely occurring. Again, puts environment and farmer at risk by not following through with more thorough review of operation’s management practices and potential environmental impacts. Type: Dairy (125 cows) Location: Kent County Complaint: Uncontrolled cattle access to stream, potential for nutrient and sediment runoff, and pipe directing milky discharge to tributary. MDEQ makes significant objections to plan: does not address important areas, such as runoff from bare feedlot, adequacy of distance between fence and stream, pond lining, continued need to irrigate in winter on frozen ground, and insufficient land for manure application.
Operator: Schrotenboer
Operator: Wilson
Operator: Walnutdale Farms Inc.
Operator: DeMann
Operator: Twin Rivers Dairy