Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Wisconsin
Related: About this forumWisconsin: Write, Call and Be Vocal by Thursday 16th...RE: DNR & Richfield CAFO permit!
From my email ...
This is important
Please read, write the DNR and share widely
. We won the case, dont let the DNR go around the Judges order
Friends of the Central Sands
www.FriendsofCS.org
As shared with you two weeks ago the DNR is poised to issue a modified WPDES permit (waste spreading) to the Richfield CAFO without taking into consideration the Judges comments in our successful appeal. You may recall that Judge Boldts decision in the WPDES portion of our appeal discussed our request for an Animal Unit cap, i.e. a cap on the number of animal units (cows) Richfield Dairy can put on its property. This effectively limits the waste the facility can generate. Judge Boldt agreed a cap was appropriate, and further said: The Department should establish a sustainable cap on animal units in conjunction with the revised permit reducing the maximum annual pumping in the companion high-capacity well cases.
Richfield Dairy originally applied for 6,270 Animal Units (AU) or about 4,550 cows and steers. Well to us this was pretty clear. Less water = less animals. After Judge Boldts decision came down, Richfield Dairy still asked for 6,270 Animal Units. Friends of the Central Sand's legal counsel protested to the DNR that this number was too high, given the reduced 52.5 million gallons per year (MGPY) pumping limit, and argued that a cap of 4,279 AU was appropriate based on the dairys own documentation.
Well, the DNR has tentatively decided to modify the WPDES permit and include a cap of 6,270 AUjust what Richfield Dairy asked for. The notice is available here, the draft permit is here, and the supporting documents are here. They did not provide strong justification for their decision, so FOCS legal counsel contacted DNR staff directly. Our legal counsel was told that the DNR didnt believe that Judge Boldt actually required the AU number to be tied to the pumping limit.
We obviously disagree. Its pretty clear from Judge Boldts own words that he intended the AU cap to be tied to the pumping limit, that he wanted DNR to attempt this analysis, and that the expectation was that the AU limit would be lower as a result of the pumping limit. The DNR couldnt set a random AU cap and let the Dairy determine how to comply with the pumping limit.
Tell them what you think .
The public notice period on the proposed permit change expires this Thursday, July 16. Please send comments to Ms. Casey Jones, DNR Oshkosh Service Center, 625 E. County Road Y, Oshkosh, WI 54901, (920) 303- 5426, [email protected] Let her know what you think of the DNRs decision to basically do the CAFOs bidding.
Talking points
- This letter is regarding the DNRs proposal to modify Richfield Dairy WPDES permit to impose an animal unit cap of 6,270.
- FOCS successfully petitioned the court regarding high capacity wells resulting in Judge Boldts final order limiting Richfield Dairys pumping to 52.5 million gallons per year given the areas declining water resources.
- The Judges order said The Department should establish a sustainable cap on animal units in conjunction with the revised permit reducing the maximum annual pumping in the companion high-capacity well cases.
- Based on Richfield Dairys own numbers, provided during the contested case proceeding as part of sworn discovery responses, we believe that number to be 4,279 AU.
- The DNRs proposed permit modification fails to comply with the administrative law judges order and fails to exercise any discretion on the matter of the AU cap as it relates to pumping.
Friends of the Central Sands
www.FriendsofCS.org
As shared with you two weeks ago the DNR is poised to issue a modified WPDES permit (waste spreading) to the Richfield CAFO without taking into consideration the Judges comments in our successful appeal. You may recall that Judge Boldts decision in the WPDES portion of our appeal discussed our request for an Animal Unit cap, i.e. a cap on the number of animal units (cows) Richfield Dairy can put on its property. This effectively limits the waste the facility can generate. Judge Boldt agreed a cap was appropriate, and further said: The Department should establish a sustainable cap on animal units in conjunction with the revised permit reducing the maximum annual pumping in the companion high-capacity well cases.
Richfield Dairy originally applied for 6,270 Animal Units (AU) or about 4,550 cows and steers. Well to us this was pretty clear. Less water = less animals. After Judge Boldts decision came down, Richfield Dairy still asked for 6,270 Animal Units. Friends of the Central Sand's legal counsel protested to the DNR that this number was too high, given the reduced 52.5 million gallons per year (MGPY) pumping limit, and argued that a cap of 4,279 AU was appropriate based on the dairys own documentation.
Well, the DNR has tentatively decided to modify the WPDES permit and include a cap of 6,270 AUjust what Richfield Dairy asked for. The notice is available here, the draft permit is here, and the supporting documents are here. They did not provide strong justification for their decision, so FOCS legal counsel contacted DNR staff directly. Our legal counsel was told that the DNR didnt believe that Judge Boldt actually required the AU number to be tied to the pumping limit.
We obviously disagree. Its pretty clear from Judge Boldts own words that he intended the AU cap to be tied to the pumping limit, that he wanted DNR to attempt this analysis, and that the expectation was that the AU limit would be lower as a result of the pumping limit. The DNR couldnt set a random AU cap and let the Dairy determine how to comply with the pumping limit.
Tell them what you think .
The public notice period on the proposed permit change expires this Thursday, July 16. Please send comments to Ms. Casey Jones, DNR Oshkosh Service Center, 625 E. County Road Y, Oshkosh, WI 54901, (920) 303- 5426, [email protected] Let her know what you think of the DNRs decision to basically do the CAFOs bidding.
Talking points
- This letter is regarding the DNRs proposal to modify Richfield Dairy WPDES permit to impose an animal unit cap of 6,270.
- FOCS successfully petitioned the court regarding high capacity wells resulting in Judge Boldts final order limiting Richfield Dairys pumping to 52.5 million gallons per year given the areas declining water resources.
- The Judges order said The Department should establish a sustainable cap on animal units in conjunction with the revised permit reducing the maximum annual pumping in the companion high-capacity well cases.
- Based on Richfield Dairys own numbers, provided during the contested case proceeding as part of sworn discovery responses, we believe that number to be 4,279 AU.
- The DNRs proposed permit modification fails to comply with the administrative law judges order and fails to exercise any discretion on the matter of the AU cap as it relates to pumping.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1178 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wisconsin: Write, Call and Be Vocal by Thursday 16th...RE: DNR & Richfield CAFO permit! (Original Post)
Scuba
Jul 2015
OP
ewagner
(18,964 posts)1. Town of Richfield?
What County?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)2. Adams County, although Portage and Waushara Counties would also be affected...