Follow the Manure: Factory Farms and the Lake Erie Algae Crisis Introduction In February 2013, the Less = More coalition released Restoring the Balance to Michigan’s Farming Landscape,1 a report detailing how federal Farm Bill subsidies2 help Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) cover expenses incurred to manage the pollution they generate, rather than helping sustainable farmers with the costs of their eco-friendly practices. The result is an unfair playing field that is skewed in favor of industrial livestock facilities. The report showed that 37 Michigan CAFOs—more than 15 percent of the state’s CAFOs at that time-- had been cited for environmental violations since 1996, with 26 of those receiving fines and penalties totaling more than $1.3 million. Yet from 1995 to 2011, owners and operators of these polluting facilities received more than $26 million in taxpayerfunded subsidies.3 The report also provided recommendations for actions to reverse this inequity that could be taken by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service’s State Conservationist, who has the authority to prioritize how subsidies are distributed in Michigan. This pattern of underwriting the CAFO cost of doing business with taxpayer dollars continues despite a history of many such operations discharging pollution illegally and otherwise failing to comply with measures already in place to protect the environment. Restoring the Balance showed that instead of increased positive environmental outcomes, federal cost supports permit CAFOs to continue or even to expand, which sometimes results in increased negative environmental outcomes. Thus, the dollars expended in these programs not only fail to meet the intended purpose of improving the environment, they can actually promote environmental harm by rewarding ineffective practices and bad actors. A year after the release of Restoring the Balance, Lake Erie made national headlines when a toxic bluegreen algal bloom, cyanobacteria, produced a toxin called microcystin that poisoned the drinking water for more than 400,000 people in and around Toledo, Ohio, for three days. In June 2015, an algal bloom was sighted again, earlier than ever recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and grew larger than ever in this century. Industrial agricultural pollution including phosphorus-laden CAFO waste runoff was identified as a key culprit in promoting the growth of cyanobacteria and microcystin. A specific form of phosphorus called dissolved phosphorus is too small to be effectively filtered out through conservation practices, and consequently is the main nutrient feeding Lake Erie’s algal problem. The causes of and solutions to this recurring crisis are being debated by legislators, agency officials, the environmental community, agricultural sector and others, but one thing is certain—dissolved phosphorus from fertilizer and waste entering the water from agricultural facilities--both crop and livestock--plays a significant role in the growth of the toxic algae.4 In order to shine light on the complex array of issues feeding Lake Erie’s algae problem, the Less=More coalition presents this new report, Follow the Manure: Factory Farms and the Lake Erie Algae Crisis, that examines CAFO pollution and federal subsidies in the Western Lake Erie Watershed (WLEW). While organizations like the International Joint Commission have identified agricultural runoff as a major contributor to Lake Erie’s algal growth5, a comprehensive understanding of the total input from animal agriculture to the system has been lacking. National, state and local media coverage of the 2014 bloom
1
and its impact on drinking water supplies highlighted the role of excessive contributions of phosphorus to the proliferation of the algae, but rarely did the reports trace the sources of that phosphorus or dig deeply into the associated science. Indeed, the focus of policy makers, academics and the media has been on total phosphorus. In addition, federal funding to remedy the Lake Erie problem is pouring into conservation practices6 that may work for problems like nitrogen levels but do not appear to prevent dissolved phosphorus from getting into tributaries.7 In addition, much of the phosphorus-laden liquid manure in tributaries enters through an extensive sub-surface network of drain tiles used in farming, which has not been mapped. Both the underground network of drain tiles and the over-land runoff must be monitored and taken into consideration when formulating a plan to combat dissolved phosphorus in Lake Erie. To begin to understand the role that animal agriculture plays in Lake Erie’s problem, Follow the Manure provides a set of interactive maps featuring layers of information about the CAFOs in the WLEW and the resultant manure load in the region of Lake Erie’s tributaries. The interactive maps and the data sources for them can be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/FollowtheManureReport Furthermore, to gauge the effectiveness of the conservation practices employed by CAFOs in the WLEW, the maps overlay information about the environmental violations they have received as well as the subsidies that have helped grow and sustain them—in many cases despite instances of illegal discharges and sometimes a history of repeated illegal discharges. This information was obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to the federal and state agencies responsible for regulating CAFOs in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio and those charged with tracking Farm Bill subsidies in each state. The manure amount generated is based on an average-per-species-per-farm calculation, per USDA/Washington State University’s Animal Manure Data Sheet8. This report’s appendix also provides a case study of seven industrial operations in two Michigan counties where the pollution-subsidy relationship indicates a systematic pattern of awarding taxpayer money to factory farms in violation of environmental law.” What emerges is a portrait of a watershed under siege, inundated by manure and influenced by money. The Less=More Coalition believes the findings in this white paper are the tip of the iceberg, and notes that Follow the Manure is not a comprehensive analysis of the role of CAFO pollution and subsidies in the Lake Erie algae problem. This report is only as robust as the data it is based on, and there is reason to believe that not all instances of CAFO pollution come to the attention of or are officially recorded by regulatory agencies equally in every county of the WLEW. However, our hope is that the information in this document inspires further inquiry into the issue as well as serious deliberation about how taxpayer dollars are spent to address environmental concerns in the Western Lake Erie Watershed. This report was prepared by the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, Socially Responsible Agricultural Project and members of Less=More, a diverse coalition of organizations seeking to create a fair playing field for sustainable farms in Michigan, in collaboration with James Campbell, a University of Michigan student in environmental studies. Special thanks go to Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan for its comprehensive data on CAFOs in Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties. Less=More Steering Committee members include: Center for Food Safety, Crane Dance Farm, LLC, East Lansing Food Coop, Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan, Food & Water Watch, Greater Grand Rapids Food Systems Council, Groundswell Farm, Humane Society of the United States, Michigan 2
Small Farm Council, Michigan Voices for Good Food Policy, Michigan Young Farmers Coalition, Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and Socially Responsible Agricultural Project. A Heavy Load to Bear The WLEW includes parts of three states — Michigan, Indiana and Ohio — and encompasses the Maumee River, the largest tributary to Lake Erie, as well as several other major rivers, including Michigan’s Raisin River. Within the WLEW, there are 146 CAFOs and nearly 12 million livestock animals9 that annually generate over 630 million gallons of waste10 (Figures 1-4). The top manure producer in the watershed is Hillandale Farms, LLC, a poultry facility in Defiance County, Ohio, that has 4.1 million animals and generates nearly 45 million gallons of waste annually (Table 3). The waste from all of these facilities contains dissolved phosphorus, along with other nutrients and bacteria, some of which make their way from the smallest ditches and creeks, far up in the headwaters, to Lake Erie. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are large livestock confinement facilities that house large quantities of animals. CAFO is a term used by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is commonly and widely used to characterize having livestock and poultry crowded into a confined space for at least 45 days, resulting in the concentration of manure in a small area..11 The US EPA mandates that farms that meet certain criteria12 obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. The US EPA has granted the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality authority for issuing, monitoring, and enforcing the conditions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits in the state. In spite of this regulation as well as required and voluntary conservation measures such as buffers, grass strips, conservation tillage including no-till, constructed wetlands, tile plugs, and cover crops, many of these industrial livestock facilities often fail to meet the Clean Water Act regulations as stipulated in their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CAFO permits. Ohio represents the largest land portion of the WLEW. Its 57 CAFOs — mostly dairy and hog operations, with a few poultry facilities — generate the most waste in the watershed, annually churning out 430,248,252 gallons. Michigan and Indiana have smaller portions of the WLEW in terms of land area, but together their CAFOs contribute 260,555,363 gallons of waste, or about 38% of the region’s total, so they also play a highly significant role. As Table 1 shows, while Michigan has just 14 CAFOs in the WLEW and Indiana has 75, the Michigan facilities have a higher annual per-animal waste production than either Indiana or Ohio. This is because more than three-quarters of the Michigan operations are dairies, which produce much more waste per animal than other kinds of livestock operations13. In fact, one of the top two manure producing counties in the entire WLEW is Michigan’s Lenawee County, which generates 90,660,343 gallons each year (Figure 4). The other is Paulding County in Ohio, which annually produces 96,633,005 gallons. Lenawee County is the top county for permit violations in the entire watershed, its CAFOs having received 81 since 2008. The only other county that comes close is Fulton County in Ohio, a mixture of swine and dairy facilities that racked up 31 violations since 2008.14 Thus Lenawee County, Mich., is remarkable within the WLEW both for the amount of manure that it produces and for the excessive number of permit violations.
3
The Western Lake Erie Watershed: Where Pollution and Taxpayer Dollars Intersect Between 2008 and 2015, at least $16,881,43915 in taxpayer-funded subsidies from the federal Farm Bill flowed to CAFOs in the three-state region of the watershed16 (Figures 9 and 10). The federal funding total includes Environmental Quality Incentives Program subsidies intended to support practices that safely deal with animal waste, including lagoons and transfer systems, and to address phosphorus runoff, with methods such as cover crops, buffer strips, and constructed wetlands. Yet despite years of funding for such practices, there is compelling evidence that wastes from CAFOs have continued to enter the waterways of the WLEW and, further, that they have contributed significantly to the algal crises in 2014 and 2015. In addition, even though total phosphorus in Lake Erie has decreased, the dissolved phosphorus has increased.17 Over the same period (2008-2015), CAFOs in the watershed were cited for 230 environmental violations of all kinds and specifically 112 illegal discharges of waste, an average of 16 citations per year (Figures 5-8), and were fined a total of $1,137,00018. Oakshade Dairy, LLC, a 1,750-animal operation in Ohio’s Fulton County, had the most illegal discharges (14) and the most environmental violations of any kind (31) in the watershed. A close second is OFE LLC- Marseille Egg Farm, a facility with 2.8 million birds and 12 illegal discharges in Wyandot County, Ohio, and 17 total violations (Table 4). The county with the most subsidies in the watershed is Adams County in Indiana with 49 CAFOs receiving a total of $10,622,663, about 10 times the amount received by all of Ohio’s 57 facilities (Figure 10). The top recipient in the WLEW was Beer Farms, Inc. in Indiana’s Adams County, which received $3,315,362 (Table 5). The factory farms in this part of Indiana are mostly hog and poultry facilities. The most extreme example of tax dollars going to support CAFO pollution in the WLEW uncovered through our research is outlined in the Appendix. Hartland Farms, Inc. in Lenawee County, Mich., received more than $1.5 million in federal funding between 1995 and 2014 while in repeated violation of its permit. In fact, it has been under a court order since 2003, yet has continued to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in Environmental Quality Incentives Program and other subsidies in that time. Manure Mapped Follow the Manure contains a series of maps19 that expose the relationships between the number and location of CAFO animals, the amount of manure produced, and the tributaries and county boundaries in the WLEW. Organized by sub-watershed and by county, these maps (Figures 1-10) also show the location of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit violations (with separate maps specifically highlighting illegal discharge violations) and the cost supports awarded. Tables 1-5 are charts based on the information we gathered from state and federal agencies that regulate CAFOs and provide subsidies and show the animal count by species and the number of CAFOs by species in the WLEW as well as the largest manure producers, facilities with the most illegal discharges and those receiving the most subsidy money. Table 6 is a summary table that shows the top Congressional Districts receiving subsidies, along with the violations earned, number of illegal discharges, fines levied, animal counts, and manure produced in each district.
4
The appendix to this report, Subsidies and Violations for Seven Permitted CAFOs in South Central Michigan, provides a more detailed examination of the taxpayer money flowing to polluting CAFOs in two counties of Michigan. These seven case histories are based on data collected by Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan over a period of 15 years. This level of sustained monitoring of the impact of CAFO waste on local waterways is unique in the WLEW and, as such, provides a rare opportunity to delve deeper into the issue of the relationship between federal funding and factory farm pollution. Finally, this report contains recommendations for action that would set a course for addressing the role of waste runoff from CAFOs in the WLEW in the problem of algal blooms in Lake Erie.
Table 1: Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the Western Lake Erie Watershed. Number and kind of CAFO in three states. * = Since 2008
^ = Since 2000
Type of CAFO Bovine (Dairy) Bovine (other) Hog Poultry Research Total no. animals Total manure generated* (gallons/yr.) Waste per animal/yr. No. illegal discharges^ Total subsidies awarded*
Ohio 57 23 1 24 7 1 10,713,644 430,248,252
Indiana 75 10 4 52 9 1 864,063 137,410,933
Michigan 14 10 1 3 0 0 39,800 123,144,430
40.2 gallons 60 $1,388,092
159.8 gallons 4 $14,471,574
3,077.5 gallons 48 $1,021,773
5
Figure 1. Animals housed in large CAFOs in the WLEW, by sub-watershed.
CAFOS in the WLEW house 11,617,507 animals. The areas with the highest number are the Sandusky and Upper Maumee sub-watersheds.
6
Figure 2. Animals housed in CAFOs in Western Lake Erie Watershed, by county.
The counties with the highest concentration of animals in the WLEW are Wyandot, Hardin and Defiance in Ohio.
Table 2. Number of CAFOs by species housed within the Western Lake Erie Watershed. CAFO by livestock housed
Animal Count
Bovine‐‐Dairy (43)
83,400
Bovine‐‐Other (6)
13,660
Swine (78)
291,792
Poultry (17)
11,219,455
Research (2)
9,200
WLEW (146)
11,617,507
7
Figure 3: Manure produced, by sub-watershed, in the Western Lake Erie watershed.
The CAFOs in the WLEW produce 690,803,615 gallons of manure annually. The largest amount -131,666,669 gallons/year--comes from the Auglaize sub-watershed, which is mostly in southwestern Ohio.
8
Figure 4. Manure produced, by county, in the Western Lake Erie watershed.
Paulding County in western Ohio and Lenawee County in southern Michigan are the top manure generators in the WLEW. Paulding produces 96,633,005 gallons annually, and Lenawee comes in a close second with 90,660,343.
9
Table 3: Top 15 manure producers in the Western Lake Erie watershed, since 2008.
Farm name Hillandale Farms, LLC OFE, LLC ‐ Marseilles Egg Farm Paulding Dairy, LLC OFE, LLC ‐ Goshen Pullet Farm Bridgewater Dairy, LLC New Flevo Dairy, LLC Hudson Dairy, LLC/SMD II/Vreba Hoff II20 Medina Dairy, LLC/SMD I/Vreba Hoff I21 Terrehaven Farms, Inc. Springfield Dairy, LLC Flat land Dairy, LLC Van Ham Dairy, LLC MSB Dairy Farm, LLC Wildcat Dairy, LLC Van Erk Dairy, LLC Total Output, Top 15
Manure (gal/yr.) 44,957,722 30,815,227 28,237,495 21,571,500 20,356,050 19,680,800 18,340,337
State
County
Species Poultry
OH
Defiance
OH
Wyandot Poultry
Animal Count 4,105,728 2,814,176 5,410 1,970,000 3,900 4,000 3,525
OH
Paulding
Bovine
OH
Hardin
Poultry
OH
Williams
Bovine
MI
Lenawee
Bovine
MI
Lenawee
Bovine
MI 18,338,878
Lenawee
Bovine
3,525
MI
Lenawee
Bovine
OH
Williams
Bovine
OH
Paulding
Bovine
4,000 2,400 2,400
OH
Putnam
Bovine
OH
Wood
Bovine
OH
Paulding
Bovine
OH
Paulding
Bovine
14,892,000 12,526,800 12,526,800 11,743,875 11,482,900 10,960,950 10,960,950 287,392,284
10
2,250 2,200 2,100 2,100 8,927,714
Figure 5. NPDES permit violations of all types, by sub-watershed, since 2008.
230 violations of federal or state environmental law have been cited in the WLEW since 2008. The Raisin and Tiffin sub-watersheds in southern Michigan and northwestern Ohio are home to the most CAFOs with past or current violations.
11
Figure 6. NPDES permit violations of all types, by county, since 2008.
The two top counties with the most CAFOS that have violated federal or state environmental law since 2008 are Lenawee County in Michigan with 67 and Fulton County in Ohio with 31.
12
Figure 7. Illegal discharges, by sub-watershed, since 2008.
Since 2008, CAFOs were cited for illegally discharging manure in the WLEW 112 times. More than a third (40) took place in the Raisin sub-watershed in southern Michigan.
13
Figure 8. Illegal Discharges, by county, since 2008.
Of the 112 illegal discharges cited in the WLEW since 2008, the majority took place in Lenawee County in Michigan (37) and Fulton County in Ohio (14).
14
Table 4. Top 15 Illegal dischargers in the WLEW, since 2008. Farm Name
No. illegal discharges 14 12 11
Oakshade Dairy, LLC22 OFE, LLC ‐ Marseilles Egg Farm Medina Dairy, LLC/SMD I/Vreba Hoff I23 Van Ham Dairy, LLC Camden Dairy, LLC/SMD II/Waldron Dairy24 Terrehaven Farms, Inc. Hartland Farms, Inc. Bakerlads Farm New Flevo Dairy, LLC Blue Stream Dairy, Inc. Sun Mountain Dairy, LLC Zylstra Dairy, Ltd. Sugar Lane Dairy, LLC Range Line Dairy, LLC Next Generations Dairy, LLC
15
State
County
OH OH MI
Fulton Wyandot Lenawee
8 8
OH MI
Putnam Hillsdale
7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4
MI MI MI MI OH OH OH OH OH IN
Lenawee Lenawee Lenawee Lenawee Van Wert Henry Paulding Van Wert Wood Adams
Figure 9. Subsidies awarded, by sub-watershed, since 2008.
Since 2008, $16,881,439 in tax-payer funded subsidies have been awarded to CAFOs in the WLEW, with the vast majority ($13,499,534) going to the St. Mary’s sub-watershed in southern Indiana and southwestern Ohio.
16
Figure 10. Subsidies awarded, by county, since 2008.
Of the $16,881,439 in subsidies doled out to CAFOs in the WLEW since 2008, $11,706,150 went to Allen and Adams County in Indiana.
17
Table 5: Top 15 subsidy recipients in the Western Lake Erie Watershed, since 2008. Farm Name
Subsidies
Beer Farms, Inc. Shel Mar Farms, Inc. Brian Tonner Farms, Inc. D & J Tonner Farms, Inc. Ted Liechty Fiechter Egg Farm James and Rosa Lengacher Sommer Farm, Inc. Halliwill Farms Paul Rumple Bleich Dairy Hertzfeld Poultry Farm, Inc. Fenstermaker Farms, Inc. Hartland Farms, Inc. 5 C's Farms, Inc.
State
$3,315,362 $2,748,943 $1,999,541 $1,671,323 $1,571,256 $1,139,854 $805,559 $385,680 $313,209 $281,452 $266,147 $229,122 $215,263 $186,309 $165,347
County
IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN MI IN MI OH OH MI OH
Adams Wells Adams Adams Adams Adams Allen Adams Lenawee Adams Hillsdale Wood Putnam Lenawee Defiance
Table 6: CAFOs in the WLEW, by Congressional District.
Name Indiana's 3rd (75) Ohio's 5th (53) Michigan’s 7th (14) Ohio's 4th (4)
Illegal Violations* Discharges*
Subsidies*
Fines^
Animal Count
Manure (gal./yr.)
$14,471,574
10
4
$0
864,063
137,410,933
$1,387,978
132
60
$300,000
10,331,572
421,065,034
$1,021,773
88
48
$837,000
39,800
123,144,430
$114 * = since 2008 ^ = since 2000
0
0
$0
382,072
9,183,218
18
The Road to Recovery In the 21st century, Lake Erie is suffering from a problem that we already solved once before. In the 1970s, a phosphorus-choked Lake Erie was restored to life after a decade-long, coordinated effort to remove phosphorus from detergents, improve wastewater treatment plants and change farm practices. We need that kind of concerted, sustained approach to heal Lake Erie once again. In order for that to happen, the role of animal agriculture and dissolved phosphorus in the algal problem needs to be taken seriously. The Less=More Coalition recommends the following actions as important steps towards protecting the WLEW from waste runoff and making sure we do not face this problem again.
Declare Lake Erie an impaired watershed. At present, the US Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act sets water-quality standards for many pollutant parameters. However, the regulation of phosphorus and certain other nutrients is left up to each state. As it stands, there are standards for the amount of phosphorus that can enter waterways from industry and from water and wastewater treatment plants (point sources), but there is no water-quality standard for the maximum amount of phosphorus from non-point sources such as agriculture that can enter Lake Erie. Declaring Lake Erie an impaired watershed for nutrients like phosphorus would mean setting a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), a quantitative standard that could be consistently measured. Regulations could be created and enforced to meet this standard.
Stop giving shrinking federal taxpayer dollars for conservation practices to polluting CAFOs. As documented in the 2013 report, Restoring the Balance, Farm Bill funding gives an unfair advantage to CAFOs over environmentally sustainable farms by subsidizing the cost of trying to keep the waste that these industrial operations generate out of local waterways. Yet, each year Farm Bill dollars to tackle conservation concerns decrease, so it only makes sense to stop giving any taxpayer support to CAFOs that have proven to be polluters. Only operations that are currently in full compliance with federal, state, tribal, or local regulatory requirements concerning soil, water, and air quality; wildlife habitat; and ground- and surface-water conservation and have never been cited more than once for non-compliance with CAFO permit regulations for the same issue or cited more than once by the state regulatory agency or US Environmental Protection Agency for environmental violations or non-permitted discharges should be eligible for subsidies.
Change the phosphorus soil test requirements. Phosphorus soil test requirements need to be set to allow no more than 40 ppm from manure and chemical fertilizer. The current limit of 150 ppm of phosphorus from manure applications is set in order to meet the nitrogen needs of corn-on-corn rotation but often leads to excess phosphorus in the waterways as a result.
Ban application of CAFO waste on frozen or snow-covered ground within the Lake Erie watershed. CAFO operators often spread manure on fields as a fertilizer and as a way of emptying lagoons holding it through the winter, but if waste is applied on frozen or snow-covered ground, it can easily run off into nearby waterways. The International Joint Commission has called for a ban on this kind of application in its report, A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie, and other states including Ohio have taken steps to end this practice, but it needs to happen on a regionwide basis in order to heal Lake Erie.
19
Require soil and edge-of-field water testing before a facility receives Environmental Quality Incentives Program subsidies and after they are implemented to determine their effectiveness. Currently, computer models are used to predict effectiveness of conservation practices such as buffer strips or constructed wetlands in keeping phosphorus and other nutrients out of waterways. This creates policies that are detached from the reality on the ground. Subsidized practices and remedies need to be based on annual edge-of-field water and soil testing to provide a real measure of whether or not they work.
Develop practices that address the role of subsurface tile drainage systems in agricultural runoff, especially where liquid manure is applied. More effort is required to develop remedies for and practices that prevent liquid manure and other fertilizers from entering waterways after they have been applied over sub-surface drain tiles. The miles of unmapped, underground drainage systems that exist not only in the WLEW, but also in the Saginaw Bay area of Michigan, are conduits especially for liquid manure.
Develop a comprehensive policy based on the best and most current data across state lines. States need to work together on policy addressing Lake Erie’s algae problem, because there are no political boundaries in nature. Lake Erie is a freshwater resource shared by several states and two countries, and responsibility for its pollution problem stretches across borders.
These recommendations are based on the most comprehensive view of the manure load in the WLEW that has ever been constructed and which serves as the basis of this report. We publish these for use by policymakers and agricultural producers in the Western Lake Erie Watershed, because we believe the problems in the WLEW can only be solved with a clear understanding of what those problems are and where they are coming from, so we can collectively work toward our common goal of restoring the health of Lake Erie.
End Notes 1
Original report available at http://www.sierraclub.org/michigan/lessmore-reports
2
The term “subsidy” in this report refers to any distribution of federal dollars derived from tax payer sources to individuals and/or entities engaged in production agriculture to support the installation or expansion of a USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service-approved conservation practice. We have included under this umbrella terminology both direct payments and cost-shares, in which the federal government pays for a portion (75% in Michigan) of the cost of an approved practice and the operator pays the remaining portion.
3
While the specific concern of our 2013 report, Restoring the Balance, was the relationship between Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) subsidies for practices designed to address environmental concerns of CAFOs and factory farm pollution in Michigan, both that report and Follow the Manure examine EQIP support within the larger context of total subsidies received by industrial livestock facilities, which can include EQIP, conservation, disaster and commodity payments. Due to the difficulty of accessing information on EQIP funding to individual CAFOs, a more specific examination of EQIP subsidies and violations with respect to individual CAFOs is reserved for the case studies in the appendices of each report. 4
“Decades of monitoring have led to an inescapable conclusion: phosphorus runoff, primarily from agricultural lands, is feeding explosive cyanobacterial growth in the warm, shallow waters of the western basin.” http://lakeeriealgae.com/
20
5
“A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie: Reducing Phosphorus Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms,” February 2014, http://www.ijc.org/files/publications/2014%20IJC%20LEEP%20REPORT.pdf
6
“USDA to Expand Investment in Water Quality within Western Lake Erie Basin,” August 14, 2015, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2015/08/0233.xml&printable=true&contentidonly=tr ue 7
“A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie: Reducing Phosphorus Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms,” February 2014, http://www.ijc.org/files/publications/2014%20IJC%20LEEP%20REPORT.pdf 8
From “Clean Water for Washington, Animal Manure Data Sheet,” USDA/Washington State University, Ronald E Hermanson, Ph.D, P.E., and Prasanta K. Kalita, Ph.D, http://agrienvarchive.ca/bioenergy/download/animal_man_datasheet_wsu.pdf 9
Michigan animal counts from 2014 Annual Reports required by the MDEQ from each CAFO obtained through MDEQ FOIA request 5/18/15, records accessed in person at the Jackson MDEQ office on 5/27/15 ; Ohio animal numbers came from Ohio Department of Agriculture database at http://www.agri.ohio.gov/apps/lepp_permits/dlep_permits.aspx; Indiana animal counts came from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management website, http://vfc.idem.in.gov 10
Manure production information for select Michigan CAFOs came from 2014 CAFO Annual Reports required by MDEQ from each CAFO, MDEQ FOIA request dated 5/18/15, records accessed in person at Jackson MDEQ office on 5/2715; Ohio, Michigan and Indiana manure calculations came from “Clean Water for Washington, Animal Manure Data Sheet,” USDA/Washington State University, Ronald E Hermanson, Ph.D, P.E., and Prasanta K. Kalita, Ph.D, http://agrienvarchive.ca/bioenergy/download/animal_man_datasheet_wsu.pdf 11
The US Environmental Protection Agency defines a CAFO as an animal feeding operation with more than 1000 head of beef cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2500 swine weighing more than 55 lbs, 125 thousand broiler chickens, or 82 thousand laying hens or pullets confined on site for more than 45 days during the year. Any size operation that discharges manure or wastewater into a natural or man-made ditch, stream or other waterway is defined as a CAFO, regardless of size. CAFOs are regulated by EPA under the Clean Water Act in both the 2003 and 2008 versions of the "CAFO" rule. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/livestock/afo/ 12
Criteria are outlined in the NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual for CAFOs, http://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_permitmanual_chapter2.pdf
13
“Clean Water for Washington, Animal Manure Data Sheet,” USDA/Washington State University, Ronald E Hermanson, Ph.D, P.E., and Prasanta K. Kalita, Ph.D, http://agrienvarchive.ca/bioenergy/download/animal_man_datasheet_wsu.pdf
14
The high number of permit violations in Lenawee County in relation to other counties in the watershed could be due to a number of factors including: the diligence in monitoring CAFO pollution in the county by the local watchdog group, Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan (www.nocafos.org), and the absence of a citizen’s group in other counties; a high number of dairy factories in the county; and differences in the level of oversight of CAFOs by each state’s regulatory agency.
21
15
The amount of subsidies flowing into the watershed is at least $16,881,439 but is probably much greater. This figure includes all of the subsidy information we accessed through our research online and through FOIAs to government agencies, but several factors made the individual state figures we arrived at more or less comprehensive: 1) the transparency level and accessibility of information on CAFOs varies from state to state; 2) many CAFOs operate under two or more different names and through subsidiaries, making the tracing of subsidies to an operation difficult and sometimes impossible; 3) the most comprehensive subsidy information was obtained for Michigan CAFOs because of the presence of the local watchdog group Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan (www.nocafos.org) and the fact that there were only14 to track in the WLEW. 16
Subsidy information throughout this report is derived from three documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to NRCS officers: for Indiana from a document titled “Re: Freedom of Information (FOIA) Request FOIA Number 2015-NRCS-03958-F” from Elana K. Cass, State Administrative Officer/FOIA Officer, dated Aug. 14, 2015; for Ohio, from a document titled “Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request FOIA Number 2015-NRCS-05511-F” from Patrick Mcloughlin, NRCS National FOIA/PA Officer, dated Sep. 9, 2015; for Michigan from a document titled “Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request FOIA Number 2015NRCS-03286-F, from Diane Gray, FOIA Officer, dated May 4, 2015. Additional information was obtained through the Environmental Working Group’s farm subsidy database at http://farm.ewg.org/?_ga=1.78897620.1987908085.1447459160 and the USDA payment information at www.usaspending.gov. 17
“The total amount of phosphorus leaving a watershed and entering Lake Erie is calculated as the sum of two different forms of the nutrient — dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) and particulate phosphorus. Data collected by Heidelberg researchers show that, since the mid-1990s, levels of DRP have been on an upward trend. For example, dissolved reactive phosphorous released into Ohio’s Maumee River in April and June, a critical time for spurring algal blooms in the summer, has increased from approximately 100 metric tons in the mid-1990s to 150 metric tons by the end of the past decade. Amounts of particulate phosphorus entering the Maumee watershed have declined from approximately 600 metric tons to 550 metric tons over the same time period.” http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2014/world/choke-point-index-great-lakes-drinking-water-fouledby-toxic-algae/ 18
Violations information throughout this report is derived from three documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to agencies regulating CAFOs: for Indiana, from a document titled “Re: Public Record Request” from Faith Campbell, Program Coordinator, Indiana Department of Environmental Management Public Records Office, dated July 2, 2015; for Michigan, from a document titled “Request for Disclosure of Official Files from Water Resources Division (WRD) from Lorinda Lehner, FOIA Liaison, Department of Environmental Quality, Water Resources Division, May 26, 2015; for Ohio from two documents titled “Public Records Request: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation” from Leanne Greenlee for Richard E. Bouder, Director of Ohio EPA, dated July 8, 2015 and Sep. 24, 2015. 19
These maps are snapshots from this report’s interactive maps at: http://tinyurl.com/FollowtheManureReport
20
Violation of permit for Hudson Dairy, LLC was cited by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in June 2015. All other violations at this facility occurred between 2002 and 2008 when it was under the ownership of Vreba-Hoff Dairy II, and in 2012 under ownership of Southern Michigan Dairies II, LLC.
21
Violations are not under ownership of Medina Dairy, LLC. They occurred at this facility between 2001 and 2009 when it was under ownership of Vreba-Hoff Dairy I and in 2011-2012 under ownership of Southern Michigan Dairies I, LLC.
22
22
Violations are not under ownership of Oakshade Dairy, LLC. Violations at this facility occurred in 2009 under the ownership of Chesterfield Dairy, LLC.
23
Violations are not under Medina Dairy, LLC. They occurred at this facility between 2001 and 2009 when the facility was under the ownership of Vreba-Hoff Dairy I and in 2011-2012 under ownership of Southern Michigan Dairies I, LLC.
24
Violations are not under ownership of Camden Dairy, LLC. Violations at this facility occurred between 20012006 when it was under the ownership of Jelsma-Mericam Farms, and from 2008-2010 under ownership of Waldron Dairy.
23
Appendix Subsidies and Violations for Seven Permitted CAFOs in South Central Michigan In terms of land mass, the Michigan portion of the Western Lake Erie Watershed (WLEW) is smaller than Ohio and this leads some to downplay its role in the Lake Erie algae problem. Of the three states in the watershed, Michigan has the smallest number of animals, just under 40,000, and four (Washtenaw, Monroe, Lenawee, and part of Hillsdale) of its counties fall within the WLEW. These numbers are deceptive, however, because the state’s 14 CAFOs are mostly dairy operations, and each animal generates an average of 3,094 gallons of waste per year1. In fact, with less than 1% of the total animals in the WLEW, Michigan generates about 20% of the waste. Therefore, it is important to understand what is happening in Michigan as well as Ohio and Indiana, if we are to address the role of animal waste runoff in the Lake Erie algae crisis. The south central Michigan counties of Lenawee and Hillsdale are both in the WLEW and offer a good example of what this report indicates is happening throughout the watershed –some CAFOs receive federal Farm Bill support to implement EQIP and other practices for problems such as waste runoff yet they are in repeated violation of state or federal environmental law. In one case—CAFO A cited below—a facility has been under Consent Decree for 12 years while also receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal support. At a time when millions of dollars in taxpayer funds are being poured into the WLEW through federal programs to tackle the Lake Erie algae problem, policymakers and people who depend on Lake Erie for water and their livelihoods need to know that these resources are being used wisely and are effective. To this end, here is a closer look at seven CAFOs in Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties. The information below shows the amount of federal support each has received, the kind of conservation practices they have gotten support for (as required under CAFO National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits issued by the State of Michigan and identified in their Certified Nutrient Management Plans required by the MDEQ) and the violations they have been cited for since the 1990s. CAFO A: Hartland Farms, Inc.2 (affiliated businesses B & T Family Limited Partnership, P & M Family Limited Partnership, Hart Brothers LLC, Tiger Family Limited Partnership) This facility that has been under Consent Decree since 2003 yet repeatedly received substantial EQIP funds since then. ● Animal count, original permit, 2005: 671.3 ● Animal count, 2014 annual report: 980 dairy/dry cows, 290 heifers/calves ● Total Government Funding, 1995-2014: $1,520,674 o Subsidies, including dairy & feed crops, 1995-2012 (per EWG) - $1,418,392 ▪ Conservation: $265,296 ▪ EQIP - $228,488 (2001, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011) ▪ Disaster: $0 1
Based on Michigan aggregate animal number and manure generated in Table , p. 6 of this report. http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/dt_corp.asp?id_nbr=191506&name_entity=HARTLAND%20FARMS,%20I NC. 2
▪ Commodity: $1,153,096 o USDA Payments, 2013-2014 (usaspending.gov) - $102,372 ● Conservation Practices – Vegetative buffers, grass strips, conservation tillage Hartland Farms, Inc. had a discharge in March of 2000 which brought in USEPA for an inspection in September of 2000. The CAFO was then cited with an EPA Administrative Order for multiple discharges and ordered to obtain a Michigan CAFO NPDES permit. Discharges and violations continued. Hartland Farms, Inc. was then issued a Consent Decree by the court in 2003. In April of 2004 the Hartland Farms Attorney sent DEQ Enforcement a letter stating that they were seeking EQIP money to increase waste storage capacity. Hartland Farms, Inc. continued having violations and discharges while under the consent decree, while under an NPDES permit and receiving USDA money. From the Consent Decree for Hartland Farms3 On page 7 H, Line 16 thru 22 "On and after the effective date of this Consent Decree, Hartland Farms shall provide and maintain adequate management practices, in accordance with the Natural Resource Conservation Service ("NRCS") standards, to prevent runoff of sediments, nutrients, or animal waste into any waters of the state from any current or future livestock feedlots or pastures. Adequate management practices include properly designed buffers, rotation, seeding, watering station controls, diversions, good housekeeping measures, covers, or collection and treatment according to NRCS standards as incorporated in the attached MDEQ-approved CNMP." Hartland Farms, Inc. is still under a Consent Decree. Hartland Farm Violation History Since 2000 Hartland Farms has had the following violations, Order and Consent Decree: ●
3
MDEQ/EPA/agency violations and actions: o March, 2000 – MDEQ violation for discharging manure into drain/tributary to lake and river. o September, 2000 – EPA Administrative Order for violations for multiple discharges, including milk house waste, into drains/tributary to river. o November, 2001 – MDEQ violation for discharging manure into drains/tributary to river. After multiple discharges, DEQ District Office sends Notice of Non-Compliance Letter stating violations “are being reviewed for possible escalated enforcement.” o February, 2002 – MDEQ violation for manure discharge through field tiles to tributary to river o November, 2003 – MDEQ violation/animal mortality not being managed according to law, “carcasses of dead farm animals half buried" in a pile of old silage. "Leachate was pooling around the pile and there were bones strewn about as if dogs or other animals had pulled them out. The pile was not on an
Filed May 30, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o
impervious surface and it did not appear as if it was a prepared site for composting." (MDA Special Report on August 21 inspection) 2003 – State of Michigan penalty issued = $12,200 ($5,000 civil fine + $7,200 costs) 2003 CONSENT DECREE Required by MDEQ to obtain NPDES CAFO permit, due to violations (not facility size or livestock numbers). December, 2004 – MDEQ violation for manure discharge through field tiles to drain/river tributary after application over tile and dragline failure September, 2006 – MDEQ violation for failure to turn in current Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) October, 2006 – MDEQ violation for manure application on fields prohibited in last known CNMP November, 2006 – MDEQ violation for manure discharge through field tiles to drain/river tributary March, 2008 – MDEQ violation for multiple violations of Consent Decree. Illegal discharges to river tributary after manure application on frozen, snow-covered ground to field that did not meet specifications for winter application April, 2008 – MDEQ violation for manure discharge through field tile to drain/river tributary July, 2008 – crop-duster hired by farm cited by MDA after violations of federal and MI pesticide application laws. July, 2010 – citation by MDA for non-conformance with GAAMPs for spraying manure over July 4 holiday weekend. September, 2014 – MDEQ violation for stockpiling CAFO waste for 4 days in field not in CNMP and not approved for manure application prior to use November, 2015 - CONSENT DECREE still active.
CAFO B: Bakerlads Farm ● Animal count, original permit, issued 2012: 504 ● Animal count, 2014 annual report: 520 dairy/dry cows ● Total Government Funding, 1995-2014: $1,307,383 o Subsidies, including dairy & feed crops, 1995-2012 (per EWG) - $1,225,930 ▪ Conservation: $372,202 ● EQIP: $142,145 (1995-2012) ▪ Disaster: $36,880 ▪ Commodity: $816,848 o USDA Payments, 2013-2015 (per usaspending.gov) - $81,453 ● Conservation Practices - Constructed wetland on facility, installed in 2005; uses conservation tillage, vegetative buffers, grass strips, cover crops, erosion control structures, water and sediment control basins. Facility is MAEAP-certified and a MSU Center for Excellence.
● USGS 2007 Report conclusion – Water samples were collected at 9 different times from June to November, 2007. A total of 73 water samples were collected within the surface water, shallow water, and manure-treatment system … . Data from the E. coli pathogen analysis of 73 samples showed that 73 percent of the samples contained the eaeA gene, 1 percent of the samples contained the stx2 gene, 37 percent contained the stx1 gene, 21 percent of the samples contained the rfbO157 gene, and 64 percent contained the LTII1 gene. All of these are pathogens. The EC gene that is common to all E. coli was present in 97% of the samples. ● MDEQ /EPA/agency violations and actions: o November, 2002 – MDEQ violation for discharge of manure through field tiles to river tributary o February, 2005 – MDEQ violation for discharge to drain/tributary to river following manure application on frozen ground o March, 2008 – MDEQ violation for discharge to tributary to river following manure application on frozen ground o March, 2010 – MDEQ violation for discharge to river following application of liquid manure o Required by MDEQ to obtain NPDES CAFO permit, due to violations (not animal size), after discharge in 2010. o March, 2014 – MDEQ violations for spreading manure on frozen, snow-covered ground on March 1 and March 10 on fields not included in farm’s CNMP o November, 2014 – MDEQ violation for spreading manure on frozen or snowcovered ground on a field not appropriate for manure applications to frozen or snow-covered ground o January, 2015 – MDEQ ordered CAFO to cease the surface application of waste to frozen or snow-covered ground until updated MARI scores are submitted to MDEQ, after finding discrepancies in CAFO field maps and MARI scores in CNMP CAFO C: New Flevo Dairy, Inc. ● Animal count, original permit, 2010: 1921.5 animals ● Animal count, 2014 annual report: 3,200 dairy/dry cows, 800 heifers/calves ● Total Government Funding, 1995 – 2014: $524,891 o Subsidies, including dairy & feed crops, 1995-2012 (per EWG) - $461,050 ▪ Conservation: $6.258 ▪ Disaster: $40,000 ▪ Commodity: $414,792 o USDA Payments, 2013-2014 (per usaspending.gov) - $63,841 ● Conservation Practices - Vegetative buffers, grass strips ● MDEQ/EPA/agency violations and actions: o February, 2000 – MDEQ violation for illegal discharge of milk into drain/tributary to river o February, 2003 – MDEQ violation for discharge to drain/tributary to river following manure application on frozen ground
o September, 2003 – MDEQ violation for runoff of manure/feed to drain/tributary to river. E. coli count, 7,600,000/100mL. (MI standards are <1000, partial body contact and <130 total body contact) o Feb. and March, 2004 – MDEQ violation for discharges after manure applications on 2/21 and 3/1, 2, and 5 and 3/25 to drains/tributary to river o Nov. and Dec. 2004 – MDEQ violation for discharges after manure applications on 11/28 and 12/20 to drains/tributary to river o 2006 – State of Michigan penalty issued = $42,000 ($37,000 civil fine + $5,000 costs) o June, 2014 – MDEQ violation for stockpiling waste without incorporation for 7 days o October, 2014 – MDEQ issues multiple violations for unlawful discharge of silage leachate to tributary to river ● MDEQ facility inspection in 4/15 noted problems with a berm on manure stacking pad that allowed semi-solid manure to move off the pad CAFO D: Bleich Dairy, N. Randall Bleich, N. Randall and Eric Bleich ● Animal count, original permit, 2011: 900.9 ● Animal count, 2014 annual report: 800 dairy/dry cows, 300 heifers/calves ● Total Government Funding, 1995-2014: $1,247,917 o Subsidies, including dairy & feed crops, 1995-2012 (per EWG) - $1,247,917 ▪ Conservation: $288,991 ● EQIP: $249,918 (2005-2009) ▪ Disaster: $29,156 ▪ Commodity: $929,769 Conservation Practices - Vegetative buffers, grass strips, cover crops ● MDEQ/EPA/agency violations and actions: o Jan. 2001 – Oct. 2004 – MDEQ violations for multi-year continuing discharge of contaminated stormwater draining from the feed storage area, barnyard, and grazing area to a river tributary (unclear how, or if, this was ever resolved) o January, 2002 – MDEQ multiple violations for silage discharging to pond area and manure and feed contaminated runoff discharging to tributary to river o March, 2002 – MDEQ violations of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act for dredging natural stream, placing dredge spoils into regulated wetland, and dredging ditches “apparently to drain the wetlands” o October, 2004 – MDEQ issues compliance agreement requiring long-term corrections for failure to address contaminated runoff o April, 2005 – MDEQ violation for overdue CNMP o November, 2005 – MDEQ violation for manure accumulations outside of storage structure and no containment for contaminated drainage from calf hutches o January, 2015 – MDEQ violation for manure that “had been applied to a field at a time when the NWS forecast was predicting a very high probability of a rain event in excess of 1/2 inch within 24 hours. Field application of manure when there is a 70 percent chance or greater for rainfall in excess of 1/2 inch within 24 hours is a violation of the CAFO general permit."
CAFO E: State Line Farms (OH) ● Animal count, original permit, 2007: 8,000 ● Animal count, 2014 annual report: 4,000 swine (wean to finish) ● Total Government Funding, 1995-2014: $4,871,016 o Subsidies, including dairy & feed crops, 1995-2012 (per EWG) - $4,626,495 ▪ Conservation: $93,378 ● EQIP - $18,405 (2006-2008) ▪ Disaster: $300,000 ▪ Commodity: $4,233,117 o USDA Payments, 2013-2014 (per usaspending.gov) - $244,521 ● Conservation Practices - Vegetative buffers, grass strips ● MDEQ/EPA/agency violations and actions: o 7/2005 – MDA finds barns do not meet site selection GAAMPs; rejects odor management plan o July through November, 2005 – MDEQ cites farm for violations of the U.S. EPA Clean Air Act and Michigan air pollution law. Farm refuses to accept first letter of violation; second letter was hand-delivered o August, 2006 – MDEQ violations issued again for on-going air-quality violations (not corrected) for Dec. 28, 2005 and these dates in 2006: Jan 3, 11, and 16; Feb 16 and 24; March 18; April 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 30; May 1, 2, 8, and 10; June 2, 10, and 14; and July 12, 13, 14, 18, and 19. o August, 2007 – MDEQ violations issued for air quality violation and MDA for unreasonable odors o May, 2008 - MDEQ violations issued for air quality violation and MDA for unreasonable odors o July, 2008 – State Line Farms agrees to shut down two of its barns and to pay $28,000 under a Consent Order negotiation. CAFO F: Terrehaven Farm(s) (James Bleecker, Jason Bleecker, and Justin T. Bleecker) ● Animal count, original permit, 2007: 3,744 ● Animal count, 2014 annual report: 4,000 heifers/calves ● Total Government Funding, 1995-2014: $216,555 o Subsidies, including dairy & feed crops, 1995-2012 (per EWG) - $216,665 ▪ Conservation: $61,335 ● EQIP - $60,250 (2004-2005) ▪ Disaster: $7,318 ▪ Commodity: $148,012 ● Conservation Practices - Vegetative buffers, grass strips, cover crops, conservation tillage ● MDEQ/EPA/agency violations and actions: o February, 2005 - MDEQ Investigation from Feb 14, 2005, reports production area runoff pooling south and west of the facility. DEQ water samples found E. coli levels of 20,000/100mL and 8,000/100mL. o May, 2008 – MDEQ finds inadequate silage leachate containment, stormwater contamination, manure pad runoff, improper composting of dead animals
o June, 2009 - MDEQ Inspection on June 2, 2009, was following up on a Schedule of Compliance agreed to a year earlier on May 19, 2008. "During the inspection, [owner] indicated that current economic conditions have made meeting the Schedule of Compliance difficult." Still not completed were: containment of silage leachate and production area containment. (Inspection Report) o March, 2010 – From MDEQ report: Hydraulics failed on a tractor, opening a valve. Liquid manure estimated at 9,000 - 12,000 gal overflowed a spreader, "flowed over the driveway and into the back barnyard. Ice and snow dammed up the manure until it flowed over the top. Once it got over the dam, it flowed about 500 feet across the hay field and 200 feet of lawn. There it flowed into a large standing pool of water from the snow melt. We put a pail over the drain, with a block on top of it." DEQ Report of Discharge from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (March 10, 2010) o March, 2010 - MDEQ orders CAFO to provide an evaluation of storage structures to demonstrate they are up to standards by Sept, 2010. o April, 2011 - DEQ cites citation for violation of CAFO Permit, failure to submit required Annual Report. DEQ notes, "This same issue has also been addressed in past letters, dated June 3, 2008, and Oct 11, 2010, o January, 2013 – MDEQ violation for failure to submit evidence that storage structures complied with engineering standards o December, 2013 – Consent Order issued after failure to meet deadlines for verification that its waste storage structures complied with required standards o November, 2013 – MDEQ issues multiple violations for storage structure issues, runoff from facility, and application of manure during rainfall and on fields that were not in CNMP and which had not been approved for application o May, 2014 – MDEQ issues multiple violations for stockpiling manure on fields for more than 24 hours without incorporation, manure application to saturated ground. Also, plans submitted to MDEQ (required by Consent Order) do not include 6 months’ manure storage and do not adequately address contaminated runoff and clean stormwater diversion. o 2014 – State of Michigan penalty issued = $4,000 civil fine o March, 2015 – MDEQ violation for manure-laden discharge to tributary to river, after application on snow-covered and frozen ground and subsequent melt. CAFO G: Hoffland Dairy LLC, Hoffland Dairy, Jan Vanderhoff, Vanderhoff-Haley Dairy ● Animal count, original permit, issued 2010: 683.2 ● Animal count, 2014 annual report: 1,460 dairy/dry cows; 350 calves/heifers ● Total Government Funding, 1995-2015: o Subsidies, including dairy & feed crops, 1995-2012 (per EWG) - $470,526 ▪ Conservation: $82,342 (per ewg.org) ● EQIP - $130,605 (2011, per usaspending.gov) ▪ Disaster: $33,328 ▪ Commodity: $354,856 ● Conservation Practices - Vegetative buffers, grass strips, tile plugs ● MDEQ /EPA/agency violations and actions: o June, 2001 – MDEQ violation for discharging manure into drain/tributary to river.
o July, 2001 – MDEQ issues several ongoing violations for discharges and other health violations, including back-flush from water filters discharging to floor drain leading to drain/tributary to river; silage and calf hutch runoff discharging to drain/tributary to river; septic system bypassed with human waste discharging to manure pit. o March, 2003 – MDEQ issues violation for discharge of manure through tile to drain/river tributary following tile plug failure after applying manure on snow/frozen ground. Case sent to MDEQ enforcement. o July-August, 2004 – MDEQ issues several violations for discharges of manure into drain/river tributary following field application of liquid manure. o November, 2004 – MDEQ violation for discharge to drain/river tributary. The DEQ letter discusses a "control structure" placed in the tile leading to drain/river tributary. DEQ "is particularly concerned about the potential discharge of pollutants once the control structure is opened, as any remaining liquid in the tile would discharge to drain/river tributary." o January, 2006 – MDEQ issues Consent Order. o 2006 – State of Michigan penalty issued = $20,000 ($15,000 fine + $5,000 costs) o May, 2010 – MDEQ violations for discharge of manure river tributary after dragline application and notes contaminated flow entering "various field tiles and catch basins that discharge into” river tributaries. Figure 1: Locations of Seven Michigan CAFOs, subsidies and violations
Sources: Subsidy information is from the Environmental Working Group database at www.ewg.org. USDA payment information is from www.usaspending.gov. Violations information came from documents from MDEQ, EPA, MDARD, and other agencies involved obtained by Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan through the Freedom of Information Act. Most originals can be viewed in links on ECCSCM's violations page on its web site http://www.nocafos.org/violations.htm. Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan (ECCSCM) is a member of the Less=More coalition. ECCSCM is a 501(c)3 non-profit organized to educate the public on the health risks and the environmental damage generated by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Their website is www.nocafos.org.
