Agriculture’s Vicious Circle (2005)

            With the two stories under the headline “Forced from the fields”, Sunday, Nov 20^th Gazette, we see the closing of the vicious circle and cycle brought about by America’s use of the poisonous petro-chemical/industrial model of agriculture, and its Corporate sponsored Foreign Trade Policy.

            For the last 50 years we have dumped chemicals, and now toxic tank or lagoon liquid non-composted manure, on continuously row cropped soils resulting in polluted waters not only in Iowa, but as far away as the Gulf of Mexico where Iowa’s pollution alone accounts for 23% of the dead zone. The latest Iowa study on kids who live on farms with confinements finds that 55.8% of those kids have asthma as a direct result of those confinements.

            Our agriculture is poisoning us here at home and we are losing our soil at a non-sustainable rate. Our Foreign Trade Policy, through subsidized grains, is making subsistence farmers from abroad have to leave home. Those farmers can no longer afford to raise the crops to feed their families. To make money they have to leave their families and travel thousands of miles to work as undocumented illegal aliens in the US, thereby taking away American jobs and straining our welfare system.

            If we have to dump those grains abroad, apparently we don’t need to raise them in the first place. We have benign, non-polluting, models of agriculture in which we can raise the kinds of foods we need to eat, the kinds of crops we need to have a manufacturing base here in Iowa, and that uses farmers instead of inputs to run that agriculture.

            If we used that benign model, we would not be tearing farm families apart abroad; we would be putting farmers back on the land here in Iowa; we would be building healthy soil and not polluting our water, air and soil; and we would be creating value-added industries to rebuild Iowa’s manufacturing infrastructure.

            Cellulose, including switchgrass, based ethanol. Hemp, from which 26,000 products can be manufactured and which is a cover crop requiring no fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. Pasture, cover crops, and crop rotation systems. Animals integrated along with their manure. Farmers. This is a benign model of agriculture which raises food and does no harm.

Iowa’s Pollution Problem (2005)

            The Iowa Water Pollution Control Association (IWPCA), as an organization doesn’t care how much money is spent on cleaning up the environment. The IWPCA’s members, for the most part, are made up of people who process human waste daily and all the money spent in this endeavor is your tax money. If you, as an Iowan, want to spend as much of your money as it will take to clean wastewater to “X” purity that is okay with the members who make up the IWPCA. It is your money. Give it to us and we will make effluent even cleaner than it is now.

            The argument which the IWPCA is trying inform you of is this: You can spend this $1.5 billion dollars to get rid of lagoons in Iowa (just the first installment, then comes operation, maintenance and upgrades to the 400 new mechanical plants), and you will get less than 1% cleaner waters in the state. In fact, even if you spend as much money on tightening the effluent limits in Iowa today as you have spent since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, you will still realize less than 1% cleaner water in the state. The IWPCA, although rather clumsily because we are a volunteer organization, with rotating executive positions and no paid lobbyists or staff to put out slick talking points, is simply making the argument that because 95% of pollution in the state comes from agriculture and only 5% from wastewater (accepted figures for many years), if that initial $1.5 billion was spent on watershed reparations to alleviate some of the agricultural pollution going into the waterways, you would be getting a greater bang for your tax dollar. And, you might even realize a 10% increase in the cleanliness of Iowa’s waters.

            The IWPCA has recently joined a working group which includes the Iowa Farm Bureau and many other petro-chemical/industrial agriculture corporations to fight this “stricter wasterwater plant effluent limits” approach to cleaning Iowa’s waters. This association (which makes many of us in the IWPCA uncomfortable) was formed because the agricultural concerns know they are the elephant in the room, and if the cities are hit with these new effluent regulations, they will simply start pointing to what everyone agrees is the major polluter in the state, namely agriculture. It is in the petro-chemical/industrial agriculture corporations’ best interest to not let that particular genie out of the bottle. Hence the alliance.

            Quit blaming the IWPCA for positions it does not hold. Members of the IWPCA use your tax dollars to do your work. If you want more tax dollars spent on wastewater treatment, okay. We need $1.5 billion to start. But, you might want to understand clearly how to get the biggest bang for your buck in cleaning up Iowa’s waters.

Genesis of law that allows no separation between confinements and sinkholes. (6-6-05)

            The law that resulted in no separation distances between hog confinements and sinkholes comes from two distinct sources.  (I have been informed that the DNR is rewriting the “earthen berm” option, but doing it in a way that allows no public input.  I will add that info when I receive it.)

            First source: it was an unwritten rule used by the DNR when they found a confinement that was already built and through an honest mistake was sited too close to a sinkhole, the DNR would allow that confinement to exist, rather than tear it down, if they built an earthen berm around the confinement which would contain any spill that might happen.  This unwritten rule was never used to allow new construction.

            Second source: the producers in Allamakee County, which is extremely hilly, were looking for a way to expand their herds.  They asked their local state legislators to grant a variance to the minimum separation distance law, 1000 ft (or by DNR discretion 2000 ft), if a sinkhole was on the other side of a ridge in another mini-watershed.

            There are two problems with this change in the law.  One problem is thinking just because a sinkhole is over a hill it isn’t going to be impacted by any pollution events within 1000 ft.  And the second problem is that the language of the changed law left out the words “in another watershed”, which was the only variance the producers were actually asking for. 

            This second problem, leaving out the words “in another watershed” is what has legally allowed confinements to be built right next to sinkholes.  The DNR lawyers took a look at the law and concluded that the DNR would lose any lawsuit brought by a producer wanting to use the earthen berm option to build when a sinkhole is closer than the minimum 1000 ft.  (Upon discovering this, why didn’t the DNR lawyers say “Wait a minute. This minimum separation distance is what protects the public watersource.” And research why this law was being changed, and bring this oversight to the Legislature’s attention so that the law could be put back to the correct language? And, what the producers actually asked for in the first place?) 

            Also, somehow the definition of “earthen berm” has been changed from its original meaning of “an earthen structure 360 degrees around a building (or storage tank, etc.) capable of containing all of the stored material if there is a spill or leak”, to “a pit dug on one side of a building able to contain 50% of the material”.

            This is still even more bizarre and I direct you to my papers Geologic within Ecologic, or CAFO’s in Karst, or Bioethics Paper to get a better idea of how weird this change in the minimum separation distance law ended up and how it got that way.

            This is the story of the DNR part of the change in the law:

            Okay. I didn't read every line of all the emails, but I think I get the drift. Let me add a bit of information for you. The site separation distances are set in the rules. Those are the ones you want to see enforced. As I understand it, the site owner or operator has supposedly been given approval to build within the separation distance if an earthen berm is built between the site and the sinkholes.

            To the best of my knowledge, the allowance for such an earthen berm is strictly a DNR "guideline" or "procedure". This is not part of the rules. That much for sure. It has been our understanding (in this field office) that we have granted authority for such an earthen berm in very restricted and unusual situations (such as when someone built a confinement facility that didn't meet the separation distances, supposedly due to ignorance and we were in a position of either allowing an alternative, i.e. the earthen berm, or require them to tear down the confinement). I have never heard of the DNR allowing the earthen berm option for a "new" facility that has not yet started construction. What's the point of having site separation distances if we do that?

            I am sharing this because the emails you have included seem to suggest that the earthen berm option is part of our regulations (it is not) and that it is a done deal (??).

Let me repeat, that to the best of my knowledge this is an unwritten procedure that the DNR has developed to deal with "sticky" situations and not part of our regulations. Now let me hastily say that my "off the top of my head" knowledge of our feedlot regs is not in the "expert" category, so it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

            I (Bob Watson) talked with Wayne Gieselman about the meeting that the DNR had about the status of separation distances in karst topography.  The lawyers said that even though the separation distances were law, they were trumped by HF 2494 (or 2493) and there were effectively no separation distances to sinkholes in karst because of the ability of confinement operators to use the earthen berm option.  They also stated that if the DNR tried to enforce the separation distances and an operator took them to court, the DNR would lose.

        So, we are left with the option of suing the State for the absurdity of what is not allowed in karst for storage because of sinkholes, namely an earthen structure, allowing a confinement to be built right next to a sinkhole if an earthen structure, a berm, is built around the building.  (end of DNR part)

            What follows is the story of how the request for a variance by the Allamakee producers ended up affecting the minimum separation distances in the law:

            Sinkholes, a major feature of karst topography, besides appearing out of the blue, are a direct conduit to underground streams, rivers, springs and aquifers (which are one of our public sources of clean drinking water).  Think of sinkholes as enablers of environmental disaster if there were a hog confinement pollution event close by.  Now, imagine our utter disbelief at finding out what the Iowa Legislature has done to the minimum separation distance laws in karst topography between hog confinements and sinkholes.

            Whether through stupidity or sheer malice the Legislature has trumped the original separation distances thusly:

        -“earthen structures” for manure storage at hog confinements (CAFO’s) are not allowed in karst topography because of sinkholes, so you must use an underground concrete pit beneath the building for manure storage.

        -if your confinement site is too close to a sinkhole in karst (minimum separation distance-1000 feet), you simply can't build it.

        -unless(!) you put an “earthen structure” above the ground next to your building, and then you can build right next to a sinkhole in karst topography.

            Huh?  The absurdities are:

            -an “earthen structure” not allowed in karst because of sinkholes, can be used in karst to build right next to a sinkhole if you are too close to that sinkhole.

            -an above ground berm will contain any spills from an underground tank.

            Much to the consternation of DNR upper level management, when apprised of this situation and upon deciding to enforce the original separation distances, their lawyers told them that because of the way HF 2494 (or 2493) was written, they could not enforce those separation distances.  The lawyers said the DNR would lose any suit brought by an operator denied the berm option.  Effectively there are no longer any separation distances between hog confinements and sinkholes in karst topography.  THE MOST SENSITIVE GEOLOGIC AREA OF IOWA IS NOW THE LEAST PROTECTED FROM POLLUTION CAUSED BY UNTREATED MANURE SPILLED OR LEAKING FROM HOG CONFINEMENTS.  Make no mistake, there is no biological remediation available in aquifers if there is a pollution event, and OUR PUBLIC WATER IS AT RISK. 

            It gets even worse when the berm option is actually played out in construction.  The law for calculating how big an earthen berm (secondary containment) needs to be around a confinement building is:

            “65.15(17)  Secondary containment barriers for manure storage structures.

Secondary containment barriers used to qualify any operation for the exemption provision in subrule 65.12(5) {the minimum separation distances-author} shall meet the following:

            a.  A secondary containment barrier shall consist of a structure surrounding or downslope of a manure storage structure that is designed to contain 120 percent of the volume of manure stored above the manure storage structure's final grade.  If the containment barrier does not surround the manure storage structure, upland drainage must be diverted.”

            By law, the berm must contain 120% capacity of an above grade (above ground) storage structure.  Somehow in karst, not only have we lost minimum separation distance to sinkholes, but the berm calculation is based on above ground storage, which is not allowed in karst, and 120% has become 50%.  If you carry out the calculation, because there is no above grade storage to multiply out, the answer always turns out to be zero. Again, this is a clearly absurd situation.

            What really happens is even more bizarre and Orwellian.  The concept of “secondary containment” originally comes from the EPA’s regulation of the petroleum industry.  As originally understood, secondary containment meant ‘an earthen berm completely surrounding a set of tanks, large enough to contain 150% of the contents of the largest tank’.  That is what anyone historically associated with secondary containment will tell you it means.  Somehow when this was translated to hog confinements in karst, secondary containment now means a pit dug on one side of a building.  How this above ground pit is supposed to contain a spill from an underground tank is unknown.  How any spill is supposed to happen on only that one side of the building is unknown.  And, how something illegal in karst for manure storage because of sinkholes, namely an earthen structure, allows you to build right next to a sinkhole in karst is unknown.

            With the above Iowa law and the resultant absurd conditions they create, let me welcome you to the world of CAFO’s in karst topography.  It would be nice once in awhile if the DNR would make people sue them in order to win the right to pollute, instead of private citizens having to sue to try to stop pollution, or after a pollution event has already occurred.  It would be even better if the DNR would admit the absurdities brought about by the berm option being applied in karst, and just enforce the original separation distances.  Actually, because of the dangers posed, the DNR and the Iowa Legislature should simply outlaw any CAFO’s in karst topography.

             These, in my opinion are legal aspects in this paper, and they have moral and ethical implications also:

        1. Neither workers nor neighbors are educated about or protected from the dangers posed by these industrial technologies.  The federal 'Confined Spaces Regulations' are the controlling laws in all other sectors of the US where these conditions exist except in agriculture.

        2. One sector, through pollution events and every day operation, makes the public source of drinking water and breathable air unusable for the rest of society.

        3. Laws have been passed that take away existing legal protections for people from these industrial technologies.

            The wider moral and ethical question raised in this paper has to do with transferring inherently poisonous industrial technologies, which come from a regulated environment,  into the area of agriculture, which has no regulation. These technologies are regulated in the industrial sector because their inherent poisonous has long been recognized, and people who work with, or live around, these industrial technologies need to be protected from the poisons produced; hence, the regulations.

            The specific moral and ethical dimensions discussed are: 

Moral implications of using an inherently poisonous (petro-chemical/industrial) model of agriculture;

Ethical implications of using an inherently poisonous model of agriculture when benign models exist;

Ethical implications of transferring highly regulated industrial technologies into the unregulated (by law) area of agriculture;

Ethical implications of having no conversation on the use of these models in the national political arena where we make these choices;

Moral implications of having laws which lead directly to the poisoning of people resulting in disease and death;

Ethical implications of using laws to take away protections for people in the case of petro-chemical/industrial agriculture, when in every other sector of America where these conditions exist, laws protect people;

Ethical implications of laws which are internally absurd being used to deny protections both to people and the environment;

Moral implications of one sector of society taking away clean air and water for all other sectors (read people) through daily operation and pollution events.

            So, this is the story of how the “minimum separation distances” between confinements and sinkholes has been lost in Iowa law.

Sinkholes and hog confinements in karst topography.  (a talk)  2-27-05

            Whatever cultural mythology our ancestors brought with them to this country which allowed them to herd the indigenous population they hadn’t killed into sacrifice areas has, ironically, come full circle and we are using it against our own people. Rural America has become a sacrifice area.

            We live in a state where even though we know it is immoral to poison your neighbor, it is not illegal.

The specific geologic argument:

            Sinkholes, a major feature of karst topography, besides appearing out of the blue, are a direct conduit to underground streams, rivers, springs and aquifers (which are one of our public sources of clean drinking water).  Think of sinkholes as enablers of environmental disaster if there were a hog confinement pollution event close by.  Now, imagine our utter disbelief at finding out what the Iowa Legislature has done to the minimum separation distance laws in karst topography between hog confinements and sinkholes.

            Whether through stupidity or sheer malice the Legislature has trumped the original separation distances thusly:

        -“earthen structures” for manure storage at hog confinements (CAFO’s) are not allowed in karst topography because of sinkholes, so you must use an underground concrete pit beneath the building for manure storage.

        -if your confinement site is too close to a sinkhole in karst (minimum separation distance-1000 feet), you simply can't build it.

        -unless(!) you put an “earthen structure” above the ground next to your building, and then you can build right next to a sinkhole in karst topography.

            Huh?  The absurdities are:

            -an “earthen structure” not allowed in karst because of sinkholes, can be used in karst to build right next to a sinkhole if you are too close to that sinkhole.

            -an above ground berm will contain any spills from an underground tank.

            Much to the consternation of DNR upper level management, when apprised of this situation and upon deciding to enforce the original separation distances, their lawyers told them that because of the way HF 2494 (or 2493) was written, they could not enforce those separation distances.  The lawyers said the DNR would lose any suit brought by an operator denied the berm option.  Effectively there are no longer any separation distances between hog confinements and sinkholes in karst topography.  THE MOST SENSITIVE GEOLOGIC AREA OF IOWA IS NOW THE LEAST PROTECTED FROM POLLUTION CAUSED BY UNTREATED MANURE SPILLED OR LEAKING FROM HOG CONFINEMENTS.  Make no mistake, there is no biological remediation available in aquifers if there is a pollution event, and OUR PUBLIC WATER IS AT RISK. 

            It gets even worse when the berm option is actually played out in construction.  The law for calculating how big an earthen berm (secondary containment) needs to be around a confinement building is:

            “65.15(17)  Secondary containment barriers for manure storage structures.

Secondary containment barriers used to qualify any operation for the exemption provision in subrule 65.12(5) {the minimum separation distances-author} shall meet the following:

            a.  A secondary containment barrier shall consist of a structure surrounding or downslope of a manure storage structure that is designed to contain 120 percent of the volume of manure stored above the manure storage structure's final grade.  If the containment barrier does not surround the manure storage structure, upland drainage must be diverted.”

            By law, the berm must contain 120% capacity of an above grade (above ground) storage structure.  Somehow in karst, not only have we lost minimum separation distance to sinkholes, but the berm calculation is based on above ground storage, which is not allowed in karst, and 120% has become 50%.  If you carry out the calculation, because there is no above grade storage to multiply out, the answer always turns out to be zero. Again, this is a clearly absurd situation.

            What really happens is even more bizarre and Orwellian.  The concept of “secondary containment” originally comes from the EPA’s regulation of the petroleum industry.  As originally understood, secondary containment meant ‘an earthen berm completely surrounding a set of tanks, large enough to contain 150% of the contents of the largest tank’.  That is what anyone historically associated with secondary containment will tell you it means.  Somehow when this was translated to hog confinements in karst, secondary containment now means a pit dug on one side of a building.  How this above ground pit is supposed to contain a spill from an underground tank is unknown.  How any spill is supposed to happen on only that one side of the building is unknown.  And, how something illegal in karst for manure storage because of sinkholes, namely an earthen structure, allows you to build right next to a sinkhole in karst is unknown.

            Am I being Chicken Little crying that the sky is going to fall?  No.  If we know what has happened when we build waste storage in karst topography when no sinkholes are apparent (show pictures of lagoon sinkhole events), then why would we be so stupid as to risk ruining our public water by sighting waste storage right next to a known sinkhole?

The general ecologic argument:

            Recognizing the larger ecological problem being that we have adopted industrial technologies for agricultural use, it is a shame that petro-chemical/industrial agriculture is portrayed by corporate entities and some politicians as nothing more than what farming has always been.  Any defense of industrial agriculture, based on the notion that this is how agriculture has always operated in the past, is rendered moot because industrial processes, new to agriculture and never intended for use outside of strict regulation, have only recently been adopted for use in the unregulated area of agriculture.  In today’s confinements, versus farms of 50 years ago, we see diseases and deaths to both animals and humans because we are no longer dealing with manure spread to fertilize the soil, but are instead dealing with the poison gases hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia which are constantly generated from untreated fecal waste both in the confinement and in the storage pit or lagoon.  We have people working in a hazardous workplace ignorant of the dangers because agriculture has been, by law, exempted from the regulations which would educate and protect them.  People in the neighborhoods of confinements are in a similar situation as they are repeatedly told this is only a nuisance and they do not have the protections from these poisons afforded all other citizens where similar circumstances exist.

            I call your attention to the most recent studies on asthma in children where it was found that a shocking 55.8% of children living on a farm with a hog confinement had asthma.  And, to the recent measurements of ammonia haze in Iowa, where explanations of the sources of that ammonia conveniently left out the over 10,000 CAFO’s and open feedlots which constantly (24/7) spew ammonia into the atmosphere.  In pig-human equivalency only (without counting chickens, turkeys or cattle), it is like having 36 million Iowans shit in open trenches with no treatment required.  The ammonia haze in Iowa is truly a ‘haze of shit’.

            There are hundreds of studies that have been done on the effects of hog confinements on people and animals over the last 45 years.  Ironically, because some studies to set human limits for gases were done on pigs, we know that animals are susceptible to the same diseases from confinements as people.  There may be an argument by some about the “good science” of those studies, but there can be no argument about the government’s own studies culling hospital records, pre- and post-confinement introduction into a community, which show clearly a tripling of those illnesses generally associated with exposure to hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia.  These are a direct result of the constant venting of those poison gasses into the neighborhood and the contamination of the sources of water.  Add to that, records which show human mortality from hydrogen-sulfide poisoning four times higher in Iowa in agriculture than in the wastewater industry, and a need for public health protection from confinements becomes obvious.

            In logic, there is an argument: if a=b and b=c, then a=c.  If hog confinements and sewer pipes both are closed structures, if they both have untreated fecal waste in them, if that waste constantly generates the poison gases hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia, if the causes of diseases and deaths from those gasses are the same, if you need constant ventilation to survive in either a confinement or a sewer pipe, then confinements and sewer pipes are the same. The difference is that the confinements don’t get their waste treated, there is no federal ‘Confined Spaces Regulation’ providing for education and training about a hazardous work place, there are no regulations protecting the public from them as there is anywhere else in America where fecal waste producing hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia gases exist in a closed structure.  People are essentially eating pork raised in a sewer, and neighbors of confinements are living next to an unregulated poison producing technology.

Author’s note:

            The above gives you the specific argument with regard to the Bluffton South confinement site.  This is the site which is next to the 125 year old St. Bridget’s Catholic Church, and which was originally denied because it was too close to a sinkhole.  This specific geological argument also has general applications.  All of karst will be like this.

            In addition to St Bridget’s and its cemetery being downslope and downwind of this confinement, there are further watershed issues.  The subsurface tiles, that drain the land to the east of the confinement site, surface and run into a creek on a neighbor’s land.  The confinement’s surrounding fields surface drainage also runs into that creek.  That creek is joined by another creek which has its beginning in Falcon Spring, reputed to be one of the most pristine springs left in Iowa.  That spring’s watershed, because of the 380 acres being used to apply manure from this confinement, will also be impacted.  Those creeks end up in the Upper Iowa River.

            The three general argument paragraphs lay out the larger general ecological argument that “it is not just farming as usual that people are dealing with, but with the transference of industrial technology (specifically in the case of CAFO’s wastewater technology), unregulated into agriculture.”  That argument can be found in greater detail if you go to www.oneota.net/~watsoncampaign and click on chapter 6, public writings agriculture.  This is an important argument in that it gives a structure to understand generally all the particular community problems when a confinement moves into the neighborhood.  It becomes not an argument about farming, but about industrial processes and their resultant poisons and how the community is affected by them.

            With the above Iowa law and the resultant absurd conditions they create, let me welcome you to the world of CAFO’s in karst topography.  It would be nice once in awhile if the DNR would make people sue them in order to win the right to pollute, instead of private citizens having to sue to try to stop pollution, or after a pollution event has already occurred.  It would be even better if the DNR would admit the absurdities brought about by the berm option being applied in karst, and just enforce the original separation distances.  Actually, because of the dangers posed, the DNR and the Iowa Legislature should simply outlaw any CAFO’s in karst topography.

            In every sector of America where fecal waste, constantly generating the poison gasses hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia, exists in a closed structure the federal “Confined Spaces Regulations” are the controlling laws, except in agriculture.  It is my contention and belief that if the federal “Confined Spaces Regulations” were applied to CAFO’s, as they should be, then, because of the conditions inside the confinement building, CAFO’s would not be allowed to be used in agriculture.  And, the environmental and health problems that CAFO’s now cause would cease to exist.  There are existing technologies available to raise chickens, turkeys, pigs and cattle besides CAFO’s and open feedlots; and wider use of those technologies would clean up our environment and coincidentally put many more farmers back on the land.  To make that happen is simply a matter of seeing the problems and solutions clearly, and political will.

             These, in my opinion are legal aspects in this paper, and they have moral and ethical implications also:

        1. Neither workers nor neighbors are educated about or protected from the dangers posed by these industrial technologies.  The federal 'Confined Spaces Regulations' are the controlling laws in all other sectors of the US where these conditions exist except in agriculture.

        2. One sector, through pollution events and every day operation, makes the public source of drinking water and breathable air unusable for the rest of society.

        3. Laws have been passed that take away existing legal protections for people from these industrial technologies.

            The wider moral and ethical question raised in this paper has to do with transferring inherently poisonous industrial technologies, which come from a regulated environment,  into the area of agriculture, which has no regulation. These technologies are regulated in the industrial sector because their inherent poisonous has long been recognized, and people who work with, or live around, these industrial technologies need to be protected from the poisons produced; hence, the regulations.

            The specific moral and ethical dimensions discussed are: 

Moral implications of using an inherently poisonous (petro-chemical/industrial) model of agriculture;

Ethical implications of using an inherently poisonous model of agriculture when benign models exist;

Ethical implications of transferring highly regulated industrial technologies into the unregulated (by law) area of agriculture;

Ethical implications of having no conversation on the use of these models in the national political arena where we make these choices;

Moral implications of having laws which lead directly to the poisoning of people resulting in disease and death;

Ethical implications of using laws to take away protections for people in the case petro-chemical/industrial agriculture, when in every other sector of America where these conditions exist, laws protect people;

Ethical implications of laws which are internally absurd being used to deny protections both to people and the environment;

Moral implications of one sector of society taking away clean air and water for all other sectors (read people) through daily operation and pollution events.

Breached aquifer creates sinkhole at proposed industrial confinement site.(2005)

            During site preparation for a Cottonballs LLC industrial broiler confinement site (#1) in Winneshiek County, the contractor doing the work breached an aquifer. This was done either when leveling off the tops of two hills to create room for two 60’ by 620’ buildings and the road around them, or when they were scraping away bedrock in the area in between where the buildings would be (down to rock that their equipment could no longer scrape through) for surface drainage.

            The contractor admitted to Mike Meyer that the pollution in Mike’s never-before-polluted-spring was caused by his site work and that they attempted to repair the breached aquifer by putting dirt on it. Mike had tested his spring the week before and did so after it turned milky yellow and also took numerous pictures.

            That this is now a manmade sinkhole is evident by the pollution which came out of the spring after a 1½” rain event at the construction site. This residential-use spring is on property owned by the Meyer’s since 1941 and no clouding has ever been observed until work was done to create the level areas for the confinement buildings, manure storage building and access road.

            Even though local legislators passed legislation which effectively removed the “minimum separation distance between confinements and sinkholes” (by leaving out the three words “in another watershed” from a variance asked for by Allamakee pork producers) so that you can now build right next to a sinkhole, it is still illegal to build a confinement on top of a sinkhole. By creating this sinkhole, Cottonballs LLC has effectively made this site unusable for an industrial confinement.

            All of the runoff from the buildings and the site will either end up in Mike Meyer’s spring (and the Yellow River) because of the sinkhole, and/or all of the surface runoff from this property (because of the topography) ends up running through the Meyer property into the Yellow River which is no more than 200 yards from the Meyer spring. This is not a farm next door, but rather an industrial confinement with 99,998 broilers in two buildings and a manure storage building which, because of topography and the sinkhole, will have all of the pollution runoff from rain events and their own water use going directly to the Meyer property and the Yellow River.

            It seems at least strange that owners of a corporation which is in court because of continued pollution of the Yellow River, can be allowed, through a different corporation, to pollute that same river from another site without any DNR intervention.

            We in Winneshiek County have a situation where the following conditions exist and we are told that Winneshiek County has no control over them and also that the state’s DNR has no control; surely that can’t be the case:

1. An aquifer is compromised and altered through construction.

2. A neighbor’s source of water is polluted through compromising an aquifer.

3. An engineering report stating that a site contains sufficient soil depth to accommodate constructing “X” is subject to no more liability than stating “oops”.

4. A “Storm Water Permit” being rendered meaningless if more than 1” of rain occurs in any rain event.

5. Permission granted for construction of industrial confinements on the basis of meaningless promises laid out in numbers 3 and 4 above.

6. Broiler confinement buildings with earthen floors being constructed virtually on porous bedrock after leveling off sites which, because of scale and the nature of fractured limestone, are unsuitable in karst topography.

            The inappropriateness of industrial confinements in NE Iowa’s karst topography and geology, and the inappropriateness of industrial confinements in general where environmentally benign alternatives for raising livestock exist, has been voiced by many of us for many years. 

            Even if the IDNR thinks it has no basis in law to rectify this situation, there are both moral and ethical grounds on which to find a basis and to proceed:

Moral implications of using an inherently poisonous (petro-chemical/industrial) model of agriculture;

Ethical implications of using an inherently poisonous model of agriculture when benign models exist;

Ethical implications of transferring highly regulated industrial technologies into the unregulated (by law) area of agriculture;

Ethical implications of having no conversation on the use of these models in the national political arena where we make these choices;

Moral implications of having laws which lead directly to the poisoning of people and eco-systems resulting in disease and death;

Ethical implications of using laws to take away protections for people in the case of petro-chemical/industrial agriculture, when in every other sector of America where these conditions exist, laws protect people;

Ethical implications of laws which are internally absurd being used to deny protections both to people and the environment;

Moral implications of one sector of society taking away clean air and water for all other sectors (read people) through daily operation and pollution events.

            The DNR must look into this situation where site preparation work breached the aquifer and created a sinkhole in the middle of and under the proposed buildings. According to Iowa law and the DNR’s own rules, by creating this sinkhole Cottonballs LLC has effectively made this site unusable for an industrial confinement.

            Please notify me of any action taken in relation to this situation.

DNR visit to Meyer Spring and Site #1, Oct 12^th. (2005)

            Part of this was contained in the “breached aquifer” piece I emailed to you recently. This is the updated version with more recent events and also the visit on Oct 12^th of three DNR people.

            During site preparation for a Cottonballs LLC industrial broiler confinement site (#1) in Winneshiek County, the contractor doing the work breached an aquifer. This was done either when leveling off the tops of two hills to create room for two 60’ by 620’ buildings and the road around them, or when they were scraping away bedrock in the area in between where the buildings would be (down to rock that their equipment could no longer scrape through) for surface drainage. Or, at the north end where a culvert was put down on bedrock.

            The contractor admitted to Mike Meyer that the pollution in Mike’s never-before-polluted-spring was caused by his site work and that they attempted to repair the breached aquifer by putting dirt on it. Mike had tested his spring the week before and did so after it turned milky yellow and also took numerous pictures.

            That this is now a manmade sinkhole is evident by the pollution which came out of the spring after a 1½” rain event at the construction site. This residential-use spring is on property owned by the Meyer’s since 1941 and no clouding has ever been observed until work was done to create the level areas for the confinement buildings, manure storage building and access road and the trenches for culverts and drainage.

            There have now been two rain/spring contamination events, both documented with pictures and the first with water tests. The second contamination event to the spring was mud colored water, presumably from the dirt the contractor said he put over the bedrock where he scraped other bedrock away. Incidentally, the test results from the Iowa Hygienic Lab comments stated the water was no longer safe for drinking and the springs’ aquifer must have been disturbed somehow and that disturbance should be discovered and corrected.

            Clark Ott recently discovered ponding at the north end where the hill was scraped away for the culvert under the drive. It had not rained and so apparently we now had a “side hill spring” from the breached aquifer too. (Similar to a side hill spring at approximately the same elevation and 500’ away on the Meyer property.) Pictures were taken of this ponding.

            I was in contact with an attendee of the 10^th Annual Sinkhole conference, recently held in San Antonio, Texas. In response to my questions about this situation he commented to me: "A "human induced sinkhole" is a widely recognized phenomenon. At the 10th Sinkhole Conference in San Antonio, probably half of the papers dealt with human induced sinkholes. There is a long list of human activities that can induce sinkholes. At the top of that list are 1) water impondments, 2) construction activities, 3) alterations to the natural drainage, and 4) groundwater withdrawal through wells." This validated for us that what we were describing was being taken seriously by the leading sinkhole researchers in the nation and gave us the correct terminology to converse with.

                        My request that someone from the DNR should check to see if the aquifer had been breached was initially sent on Sept 25^th. The three people sent to check on the breach didn’t show up until Oct 12^th. This time difference will become important later.

            When the DNR people showed up we were pretty quickly informed that we didn’t know anything about what we were describing. They said that there was no way any sinkhole formation could have been caused by the construction. That the geology was not karst. That the claim that the grading caused the spring contamination was probably false and that we couldn’t prove it anyway. That a seep/spring could not have been formed and no ponding was observed (it had been covered with 5 loads of gravel two days prior to this visit, time lag above). That even if some sort of fractured limestone disturbance caused an opening to the spring the gravel/dirt would close it up. That the aquifer couldn’t be following the contours and have been breached causing a seep/spring and sink because none was observed (even though a side spring exists on the Meyer property 500’ away, mentioned above, and proves that the aquifer follows the contours). That no dye would be used to further investigate. That it was the responsibility of Mike Meyer to observe and test. That even though the DNR was apprised of this situation that they didn’t have any responsibility to follow-up after this visit. That there were any number of causes for the Meyer spring contamination including earthquakes in Alaska. That the confinement operator certainly wouldn’t do anything wrong. That the Sinkhole Conferences had nothing of interest which would cause Iowa to attend. That a sinkhole by definition couldn’t be manmade. That our karst is totally different than other karst and “we” are the experts. That someone studying karst ten miles away in Allamakee County could have nothing useful to say about this situation. That what has been the truth of that spring since 1941 is only hearsay. That this is essentially a “he said, she said” argument not provable by facts. That we should talk to our legislators. That no, the DNR did not need to err on the side of safety and halt construction of the confinement until this was finally resolved. That everything was being done according to regulations.

            I think that pretty much sums it up!

            Basically, Mike and I and our facts were brushed aside. We are not satisfied with this “visit”. Please discuss this among yourselves. We would appreciate your comments on this “visit” and what you might do to resolve this ongoing issue with the Meyer spring. (Site #2 across the road is now undergoing the same grading.)

          Chicken CAFO Remarks to the Winneshiek County Supervisors (3-28-05).

            Are we here today simply to argue about what a farmer can do on his land in this single case?  No.  Are the Supervisors here simply to listen to our concerns and then just recommend a course of action to the State (as is their claim), or are there legal steps they could take, and I would say is their duty to take, to protect the people of Winneshiek County?  Yes. 

             These, in my opinion are the legal aspects and they have moral and ethical implications also:

        1. Equal protection - in that neither workers nor neighbors are educated about or protected from the dangers posed by these industrial technologies.  The federal 'Confined Spaces Regulations' are the controlling laws in all other sectors of the US where these conditions exist except in agriculture.

        2. Takings - in that one sector, through pollution events and every day operation, makes the public source of drinking water and breathable air unusable for the rest of society.

        3. Constitutional Law - in that laws have been passed that take away existing legal protections for people from these industrial technologies.

            What are we really talking about today?  What is the framework which allows and demands that our Supervisors take action to protect the health and lives of the residents, and their children, of Winneshiek County?  Listen.

            Whatever cultural mythology our ancestors brought with them to this country which allowed them to herd the indigenous population they hadn’t killed into sacrifice areas has, ironically, come full circle and we are using it against our own people. Rural America has become a sacrifice area.

            We live in a state where even though we know it is immoral to poison your neighbor, it is not illegal.

            Recognizing the ecological problem being that we have adopted industrial technologies for agricultural use, it is a shame that petro-chemical/industrial agriculture is portrayed by corporate entities and some politicians as nothing more than what farming has always been.  Any defense of industrial agriculture, based on the notion that this is how agriculture has always operated in the past, is rendered moot because industrial processes, new to agriculture and never intended for use outside of strict regulation, have only recently been adopted for use in the unregulated area of agriculture.  In today’s confinements, versus farms of 50 years ago, we see diseases and deaths to both animals and humans because we are no longer dealing with manure spread to fertilize the soil, but are instead dealing with the poison gases hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia which are constantly generated from untreated fecal waste both in the confinement and in the storage pit or lagoon.  We have people working in a hazardous workplace ignorant of the dangers because agriculture has been, by law, exempted from the regulations which would educate and protect them.  People in the neighborhoods of confinements are in a similar situation as they are repeatedly told this is only a nuisance and they do not have the protections from these poisons afforded all other citizens where similar circumstances exist.

            I call your attention to the most recent studies on asthma in children where it was found that a shocking 55.8% of children living on a farm with a confinement had asthma.  Also, because of proximity to a confinement, we can safely assume many neighbor children are similarly affected.  Because of the solid nature on chicken manure, there is less hydrogen-sulfide created but more ammonia.  Because of that greater concentration of ammonia along with the addition of all the dust and dander coming from chicken CAFO’s, we can assume the percentage of children, workers and neighbors with asthma and other respitory related illnesses will most likely be higher than the already observed 55.8%.  And I call your attention to the recent measurements of ammonia haze in Iowa, where explanations of the sources of that ammonia conveniently left out the over 10,000 CAFO’s and open feedlots which constantly (24/7) spew ammonia into the atmosphere.  In pig-human equivalency only (without counting chickens, turkeys or cattle), it is like having 36 million Iowans shit in open trenches with no treatment required.  The ammonia haze in Iowa is truly a ‘haze of shit’.

            There are hundreds of studies that have been done on the effects of confinements on people and animals over the last 45 years.  Ironically, because some studies to set human limits for gases were done on pigs, we know that animals are susceptible to the same diseases from confinements as people.  There may be an argument by some about the “good science” of those studies, but there can be no argument about the government’s own studies culling hospital records, pre- and post-confinement introduction into a community, which show clearly a tripling of those illnesses generally associated with exposure to hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia.  These are a direct result of the constant venting of those poison gasses into the neighborhood and the contamination of the sources of water.  Add to that, records which show human mortality from hydrogen-sulfide poisoning four times higher in Iowa in agriculture than in the wastewater industry, and a need for public health protection from confinements becomes obvious.

            With world health officials warning us about new pandemics, the rather frightening link between chicken confinements and antibiotic resistance needs to be brought to our attention.  I quote:

“The Antibiotic Fox in the Henhouse

By Maia Weinstock

DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 08 | August 2004 | Biology & Medicine

        Scientists have long known that waste beds of commercial chicken houses abound with potentially dangerous bacteria. But in April a team led by microbiologist Anne Summers of the University of Georgia reported that the beds are also littered with integrons, genes that can render those bacteria impervious to several antibiotics at once, making them nearly impossible to kill.

        For 13 weeks, Summers and her colleagues sampled feces, skin, feathers, and other organic material from two major commercial chicken houses in Georgia. The scientists discovered high numbers of integrons not only in bacteria such as Escherichia coli and salmonella but also in germs that were previously assumed to be free of the resistance-forming genes, such as staphylococci. The result suggests that integrons are much more common, both in animals and the humans who handle them, than previously thought.

        Microbiologists believe that integrons have existed for eons but took on their current role only after the development of the first antibiotics, which gave an advantage to microbes that could collect the resistance genes. These gene snippets spread when their bacterial hosts reproduce or acquire them from nearby dead cells. Moreover, integrons travel easily between humans, pets, livestock, and their wastes via bacteria that are inhaled or eaten. “We continually ingest bacteria from uncooked food, from our pets, from intimate behavior with other humans, and from putting our unwashed hands into our noses or mouths,” Summers says. “This is a warning bell.” It explains why antibiotic resistance spreads so quickly and extensively after drugs are introduced.”  End Quote.  It takes six weeks for these bugs to make their way into the bodies of the workers and neighbors in and around these confinements, possibly leaving them with no way to fight diseases normally treatable with antibiotics.

            Although Agri-Processors is probably butchering birds correctly in their Kosher process, the way these birds would be raised, if they are raised in confinement, would be poisoning our children.  I’m not sure that is the intent of the Kosher process; nor do I think that would be the wish of the consumers of those kosher birds if they knew about it.

            In logic, there is an argument: if a=b and b=c, then a=c.  If confinements and sewer pipes both are closed structures, if they both have untreated fecal waste in them, if that waste constantly generates the poison gases hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia, if the causes of diseases and deaths from those gasses are the same, if you need constant ventilation to survive in either a confinement or a sewer pipe, then confinements and sewer pipes are the same. The difference is that the confinements don’t get their waste treated, there is no federal ‘Confined Spaces Regulation’ providing for education and training about a hazardous work place, there are no regulations protecting the public from them as there is anywhere else in America where fecal waste producing hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia gases exist in a closed structure.  People are essentially eating meat raised in a sewer, and neighbors of confinements are living next to an unregulated poison producing technology.

            The previous paragraphs lay out the ecological argument that “it is not just farming as usual that people are dealing with, but with the transference of industrial technology (specifically in the case of CAFO’s wastewater technology), unregulated into agriculture.”  That argument can be found in greater detail if you go to www.oneota.net/~watsoncampaign and click on chapter 6, public writings agriculture.  This is an important argument in that it gives a structure to understand generally all the particular community problems when a confinement moves into the neighborhood.  It becomes not an argument about farming, but about industrial processes and their resultant poisons and how the community is affected by them.

            In every sector of America where fecal waste, constantly generating the poison gasses hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia, exists in a closed structure the federal “Confined Spaces Regulations” are the controlling laws, except in agriculture.  It is my contention and belief that if the federal “Confined Spaces Regulations” were applied to CAFO’s, as they should be, then, because of the conditions inside the confinement building, CAFO’s would not be allowed to be used in agriculture.  And, the environmental and human health problems that CAFO’s now cause would cease to exist.  There are existing technologies available to raise chickens, turkeys, pigs and cattle besides CAFO’s and open feedlots; and wider use of those technologies would clean up our environment and coincidentally put many more farmers back on the land.  To make that happen is simply a matter of seeing the problems and solutions clearly, and political will.

County should adopt these laws. (5-11-05)

            Other counties created their own regulations, which I never agreed with and which as we see didn’t work.  We are only asking you to adopt laws and regulations that already exist.  So, today we are asking the Supervisors to have the County Attorney look into the County adopting by reference the Federal and State laws and regulations, including EPA and OSHA regulations that apply to these agricultural/industrial activities and their resultant pollutants. 

            I will use the categories laid out in Steve McCargar’s letter from last week.

-What levels of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and methane (in parts per million) can be expected to contaminate the air breathed by employees and immediate neighbors of these proposed facilities?  Do those levels exceed the federal standards for those pollutants in confined spaces?

            ~Even though no laws exist for CAFO’s to control their poison gas discharges, laws exist which make CAFO’s responsible for monitoring and reporting to the EPA those discharges.  This planned chicken confinement facility (Winneshiek County) will be above the threshold which requires EPA notification of ammonia discharges (CERCLA provision of Superfund: Community Right to Know). 

            The threshold for EPA notification of ammonia discharge of 100 lbs/day is reached by a facility when there are approximately 35,000 broilers in a building.  This proposal, now at 4 buildings and going to 13, will have 49,999 broilers in each building.  Thus, monitoring equipment per EPA regulations will need to be installed on site and the EPA will need to be contacted each day that the facility discharges more than 100 lbs of ammonia into the atmosphere. 

            Therefore, we request the county adopt the Superfund’s CERCLA provisions.

            ~The federal “Confined Spaces Regulations” can be enforced by OSHA through their “General Duty Clause”.  This clause comes into effect if a serious hazard is identified.  Since we know that over 20 Iowans have been killed from poison gasses in CAFO’s, and that many studies show serious health effects to people from the emission of gasses, the latest of which is the U. of Iowa study showing 55.8% of children on farms with CAFO’s have asthma, these “recognized hazards” trigger OSHA’s “general duty clause” and allow OSHA to regulated these confinements.  We ask the County to adopt OSHA’s Confined Spaces Regulations and General Duty Clause.

-What health risks (including antibiotic resistance, incidence of asthma, other respiratory illnesses and avian flu potential) could develop if these units are built?

            ~Again I sight, among many other studies, the most recent study on children and asthma and CAFO’s by Dr. James A. Merchant, College of Public Health, and U. of Iowa, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives.  Because of the solid nature of chicken manure, greater concentrations of ammonia exist, and we can reasonably assume even more than the study observed 55.8% of children around these sites will get asthma.

-Why is there no definitive manure management plan as required by law for confinement operations of this type?

            ~Contrary to belief, there is no actual law that exists that says if a CAFO sells its manure no Manure Management Plan is needed.  This is an unwritten policy only.  We request the County adopt and enforce the existing written law for the requirement of a yearly Manure Management Plan for CAFO’s which is in Senate File 2293.

-What is the proximity of each complex to known sinkholes or losing streams?

            ~Iowa Code Chapter 459 part 202 lays out the separation distances for CAFO’s.  Interestingly, the only discretion mentioned in relation to sinkholes is that the DNR may increase the minimum separation distance to sinkholes from 1000 feet to 2000 feet.  The law that has recently been sighted to allow 0 feet between CAFO’s and sinkholes has never had rules written for it.  And, the calculations used to figure how big a secondary containment needs to be to build next to a sinkhole in karst, always gives zero for an answer, therefore being absurd and unusable.  We request the County adopt Chapter 459 part 202 and enforce the separation distances.

-What emergency plans exist in the event of catastrophic infrastructure failure such as loss of heat, electricity or water?

            ~The State of Iowa only has rules in place for statewide episodes of catastrophic diseases such as hoof and mouth.  There are no provisions in the law that pertain to individual CAFO’s if they have large numbers of dead animals through infrastructure failure.  We ask the County to ask the State to come up with provisions the County can adopt and to deny any CAFO until those rules are adopted.

            We have given you, and ask you to act on, the ability to protect all of the citizens of this county as well as the county itself.

Willing Partners (2005)

            There were three willing partners, “Friends of Winneshiek”, Agriprocessors, and the Clayton County Amish community, who took part in an effort to look at raising chickens for the local kosher processing plant. Because of market forces supposedly beyond our control and Agri’s economy of scale for raising birds (based on 49,999 birds per building, which they would not negotiate), those talks ended with no agreements reached.

            It was hoped that chickens could be raised by the Amish on their farms in lots of 10,000 or less, which they currently do for other markets. It was envisioned that the production would simply be a part of their ongoing farming operations, small enough in scale that all byproducts would be incorporated into normal farming systems, and completely used in a safe and sustainable way. The money offered to the Amish was less than half of what they needed (and were already making on raising birds) to even begin the conversation, and so sadly, those talks ended.

            Contrary to some people’s information, “Friends of Winneshiek” has nothing to do with the Rubashkins “Family Farms Poultry Program”. In fact, “Friends of Winneshiek” originally formed to oppose any chicken confinements in Winneshiek County of the scale being proposed by the Rubashkins. To that end, “Friends of Winneshiek” has helped a group of neighbors, who would be impacted by those confinements being built next to them in the Frankville and Castalia areas, raise enough money to retain a lawyer who specializes in “anticipatory nuisance” suits. That legal process is underway and “Friends of Winneshiek” is again raising money for that legal fight.

            “Friends of Winneshiek” has always envisioned those legal proceedings including any other neighbors in Winneshiek County who find out that a chicken confinement is being proposed for property next to them. The money raising is ongoing and if you think you may be impacted in the future, contact “Friends of Winneshiek”.

Ethanol Studies (7-25-05)

           Starting out with a conclusion and working backwards in order to justify it may get you what you want on paper, but breaking a causal chain is intellectually dishonest and, in the case of the Gazette, a disservice to your readers.

            The causal chain is growing corn inside the petro-chemical/industrial model of agriculture for conversion to ethanol. The processing cannot happen without the growing. The BTU’s that the growing takes must be counted. One cannot simply break the causal chain in a place that is convenient for whatever answer you want to come up with. Also, any environmental pollution from that process (chemical pollution to soil, air and water; unsustainable soil erosion leading eventually to no soil left) must be counted towards the overall sustainability and renewable-ness of the endeavor.

            Cellulose for conversion to ethanol may eventually be grown inside a sustainable and clean model of agriculture. If processed from perennial (switchgrass) or cover crops (hemp) which need no fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, we may even be able to say, someday, that that conversion is renewable.

IWPCA-Environmental Obstructionists? (6-28-05)

            Is the IWPCA an environmental obstructionist organization as was implied by the Des Moines Register’s lead editorial on cleaning up Iowa’s environment? I argued, in a letter defending the organization, “If there is a tension in the IWPCA, it is not between pro and anti environment, but rather between those who see it as their responsibility to make sure the cities and towns they represent are not made to shoulder more of the burden of treatment than is stipulated in law, and those who would push all concerned to do whatever is possible with the technology available today regardless of the burden of responsibility.” But, with the interpretation and use of the H2S research funded by the IWPCA, I can see where an obstructionist charge might come from.

            In an email to Steve Jones I stated, “Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the study was funded because the IWPCA was worried that the lower numbers, "30 PPB", being considered for agricultural areas, would also impact WWTP's and present problems meeting those limits.  If I am correct, how does studying only one of those areas, WWTP's, say anything about what happens in agriculture?

        The agriculture target number, 30 PPB, is skewed because, unlike the WWTP study, no H2S measurements have been allowed to be taken inside CAFO's nor at their constantly running exhaust vents. 

        25 people have been killed from H2S poisoning in agriculture in Iowa during the same time we have lost only 5 in wastewater H2S accidents.  Literally hundreds of thousands of pigs have been lost from H2S in the same time frame.  If there is no danger supported from the research at WWTP H2S levels, as you stated at the annual meeting, and my reading of the report doesn't come to that conclusion, why have 5 times as many people been killed in agriculture from H2S?  Could it be the testing is not being conducted correctly, or at, or in, the right places in agriculture? Could it be that there is no education or regulations in place in agriculture?

        My point is that the research is apples to oranges (or even apples to nothing), and one cannot say anything about agriculture from the wastewater findings.  I think it is inappropriate to use this study to argue against the DNR trying (however ineffectively) to protect the people who live around, and work in, industrial confinements.  Further, until there is proper testing done on CAFO environments, and on those people who live around them (actually there are many studies in the literature), the IWPCA would be better served pointing out the inadequacy of studies, regulations, education and protections from poisons from CAFO's and open feedlots, rather than looking like we are trying to say there is no danger posed.”

            This last paragraph explains how the IWPCA could get an obstructionist label. In defending against what may happen to us in the future, we leave out very real human problems which exist because our wastewater technology has been transferred from our highly regulated environment to the unregulated area of agriculture. We should, instead, use our expertise in this technology and its affects on people, to inform those who are facing very real health problems and deaths from H2S, and also to inform those who should be regulating this technology in agriculture. No one could then claim, even in ignorance, that we were environmental obstructionists.

            My criticism of the Research Committee’s interpretation of the H2S study has been both cautioned and informed, lest I be considered too strident instead of constructive, by Jim Stricker thusly,

“I would make two points. 

First:  The IWPCA is an organization of experts in the water environment field.  While some have some expertise in air quality, I would not include myself in that characterization.  There are differences between hog confinements and sewage treatment plants to be sure.  I would be reluctant to attempt linkage between studies for sewage treatment plants and those relating to hog confinements.

Second:  My view of the IWPCA has consistently been, not that they are anti-environment, but rather, because of their technical expertise, have a more realistic view of what priorities we should be focusing on with our limited national, state and local resources in order to make the greatest impact, improving Iowa's water quality. 

Even where the IWPCA is resisting new initiatives or standards, I view this not as being opposed to improving our water quality, but rather a realistic view of what we can do with limited resources and how we can best use those resources to provide the greatest improvement.  Trying to establish realistic priorities is a far different matter than favoring economic impact over the environment.”

            In closing let me state the IWPCA is a large and varied organization.  At some point though, we must figure out how to vet our public stances to best reflect what we as an organization are really trying to say.

            Measuring gasses in agriculture. (6-26-05)

            In the wastewater industry we have to test structures before we enter them if we know, or assume, the poisonous gasses hydrogen-sulfide or ammonia may be present.  Those structures: manholes, pump stations, certain areas in Wastewater Treatment Plants, etc., are called confined spaces and come under the federal “Confined Spaces Regulations”.  Because of years of experience with the negative health effects and human deaths from hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia, confined spaces are highly regulated and the people who work in them are highly educated.  Through that regulation and education, those workers and the people who live around these structures are provided protection.

            Industrial confinements, CAFO’s, are that same wastewater technology transferred into agriculture.  They are the same technology in that both are closed structures containing untreated fecal waste producing the poison gasses hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia.  Both must be constantly ventilated if people or pigs are to be inside them and the diseases and deaths from each are the same.  They are different in that none of the regulations, education or protections has followed that technology into agriculture.

            It is a fact that 25 Iowans have died in the agricultural sector from hydrogen-sulfide asphyxiation while, in the same time frame, we have lost only 5 in wastewater. The James Merchant (U of Iowa) study shows 55.8% of children living on farms with CAFO’s have asthma as a direct result of living next to that CAFO. We know that much of the giant Midwest ammonia plume comes directly from Iowa’s 10,000 CAFO’s and open feedlots. 

            Isn’t it about time to quit lying about what industrial agriculture is doing to us and our children?  The Gazette article, “Study: Ammonia from Iowa swine farm exceeds some EPA regulations”, contained this statement, “Gas emissions from an Iowa swine finishing farm were ‘nowhere close’ to violating the Clean Air Act…”  If this statement is accurate, how do we account for 5 times as many deaths from hog confinement events as from wastewater events?

            In wastewater we check for hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia at the opening of, or inside, the structure.  In agriculture, we go some considerable distance from those structures out into the open country to measure instead of measuring at their constantly running exhaust vents or inside.  That is not exactly apples to apples, and it allows for some pretty strange statements of fact.   

            Until we treat industrial technology the same in agriculture as we do in the industrial sectors where they came from, we will continue to needlessly kill our people and condemn our children to lives filled with sickness.

Response to the Register’s environmental editorial. (5-24-05)

            “The Register believes a clean environment is essential to progress and prosperity in Iowa.” (Sundays’ Registers’ lead editorial.)

            Ignorance of Iowa’s environmental problems’ historical antecedents, its current makeup, the players, and their respective positions, didn’t take long to manifest itself in the editorial.

            In that it is a given by all concerned that 95% of Iowa’s pollution is agricultural in origin, it is at least curious that a couple of days prior to the Sunday editorial, Patty Judge had a column, whose main point seemed to be that even though the model of agriculture she defended would ultimately cause the loss of all of our soil, we were at least losing soil a little slower recently, went completely unchallenged by the Register. That industrial model of agriculture, because in it food is considered a widget and therefore subject to market forces and trade agreements instead of being considered a fundamental necessity for human life which we need to and have a right to control for our very survival, is both immoral and unethical. Immoral in that it is inherently poisonous, and all the “good science” shows that. The most recent study on asthma in children living on farms with confinements (U of I, James Merchant) shows that 55.8% of those children have asthma as a direct result of living on those farms. And, unethical in that there are other models of agriculture (not inherently poisonous) we could just as easily be using which are benign to both people and the environment. In fact, those other models build rather than lose soil, and put more people back in rural Iowa.

            The IWPCA (Iowa Water Pollution Control Association) is a volunteer organization made up of many of the individuals in the state whose profession it is to treat our wastewater. If there is a tension in the IWPCA, it is not between pro and anti environment, but rather between those who see it as their responsibility to make sure the cities and towns they represent are not made to shoulder more of the burden of treatment than is stipulated in law, and those who would push all concerned to do whatever is possible with the technology available today regardless of the burden of responsibility. It is well known within the IWPCA that an engineer can create systems to treat to whatever levels of discharge you want, you just need to give them those levels in law and the requisite money to pay for it.

            It is interesting that the IWPCA’s current president, Carla Schumacher, was painted (along with the organization) as some sort of an environmental obstructionist. Carla is the president of the IWPCA in part because of her tireless work, both professionally as an engineer and personally, on behalf of the environment, not in spite of it. Any cursory fact gathering of the educational and informational programs currently up and running in Iowa about keeping the Iowa environment clean and healthy for all, would surely discover Carla’s efforts. And, in talking with Carla about this Register editorial, she indicated surprise after reading the editorial because the answer she gave would have been different if she had been told the context within which it was being asked. Sloppy reporting, just ignorance, or is there some preconceived agenda held by the Register which the facts need to be made to conform to? Have the Register’s editors swallowed something hook, line and sinker?

            There was a time in newspapers that familiarity with a subject was the accepted way of doing business. Iowa’s environment, the people and organizations involved in keeping it clean, and the public should expect no less today. Information is no good if it is wrong, and the Register should be very careful about what is portrayed as truth in the continuing series on the environment.