Friends of Rural New York

Ms Navarro comments on her visit to CAFO neighbors in Locke, New York

Four years ago I took a Journey to a small town in New York to witness for myself something that was then very new to me, Agribusiness: The new wave of farming that is sweeping our nation. By the time I left New York, I was filled with more emotions than I could handle. Shocked, appalled, confused, disappointed, heart broken, and sympathetic to the people I met and what they were going through. I felt like I had just visited some third world country; only never left the good old US of A.

I cried the. majority of my car ride back to llinois. Over and over again I could see and hear Fred Coon saying to me, “Now that you know all this, what are you going to do when you get back to Illinois?” I spent the next year or so researching factory fanning, talking to anyone and everyone I could about this not-so-new or unique problem and trying to do something to help my newfound friends in Cayuga County New York with their heart breaking problem.

In June of 2001, I had an article published in The Progressive Populist entitled, “Agribusiness Uses Farm Laws as Cover”. The article highlighted the plight of the Coon family and their neighbor who face a daily battle for clean air and water because of their “farmer” neighbor, who tlten owned 7,000 dairy cows. Since that time, much has changed, sadly, at the expense of the people who simply want to exercise their rights to live in a healthy and peaceful community. Tragically, they are realizing that what they are looking for can no longer be found in a place that their families’ ancestry of 200+years did. So much for the American Dream. So much for the roots that made this country what it is. After all, when it comes to hundreds of years of family history vs. money, it is foolish to think the values this country was founded on could win.

After my article on this topic was published, I received countless e-mails and phone calls. One such phone cll was from the Assistant Attorney General, Gene Kelly. He spent time on the phone with me trying to clear up my misunderstandings of our previous conversations, since within my article it had looked like his office had not properly handled this case.

It has been over three years since that article was written, and you know what Gene? The families surrounding the farmer still have e-coli and other bacteria in their water. The air is no cleaner to breathe; many adults and children use inhalers daily. The Coon pond is still filled with an un-named sediment because no state agency will come out and test it to give it a name. I can also tll you of other things that have happened:

The dairy farmer has increased his herd to 12,000 cows, heifers and calves.

Pearl Coon passed away, of course her living conditions next door to this farmer played no role at all on her weakening health.

Since their rights were ignored and violated with no repercussions.or regulation from town, county, state or federal governments, other aggressive agribusinesses in the area decided to adopt the practices of this “model CAFO” and expansion has increased in the area.

The families in the community banded together and hired a lawyer to take their farmer neighbor to court. They had a court date set for spring of 2003, which was moved to 2004. Yes, you guessed it, that date has now been moved again. One by one, families that once banded together in this fight have found that the toll on their physical and emotional health, as well as concerns for their children’s health and well being, have begun to move away.

In 2002, community residents, along with myself and other environmental organizations met with one of the lawyers at the Attorney General’s office, hoping they would find reason to take this case and bring justice to the community. The night before, we made sure we had all our information ready. We made note of laws that were broken, other states that had fought and won in similar cases, and under what laws and regulations they found justice. We had a chronological time line of events that had happened. Even the Attorney General’s office had 17 depositions from residents supporting this case.

One of the first things that he explained to us was how our government works:
a. When you have a health related problem or concern, you call the Health Department.

b. When you have an environmental problem or concern, you cll the DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation).

Consequently, if we were finding incompetence with any of these agencies, it is again, the Attorney General’s Office that would provide legal council for the state agencies it represents. This is true EVEN IF they did not necessarily agree with their ‘client,’ or if their client was wrong.

We had also asked where their investigation had led them, what they had found etc. He could not give us any of that information, again, as he legally represents the DEC. We asked that since the DEC office was on the upper floors of the building we were in, that he call up to their office and ask an agent who COULD explain where the investigation was, to come down and tell us. We had especially been anxious to get this information at that moment since they never answered any of our previous attempts at communication. Again, he stated that he would not do that to his ‘client.’

I visited with Fred and Pearl in 2002 before our meeting with the Attorney General’s Office. We stood outside, around his pond and optimistically talked about how one day this pond would be crystal clear again. How we would have a huge party and all jump in for a swim, just as many generations before did. Fred smiled and you could see how much he wanted to believe that. Then he sadly said he knew that since it takes nature 20 years to repair itself, he knows he will not be here to see it when it happens.

For three years this family and an entire community whole-heartedly believed that this office was doing a full investigation, and that one day soon, this “farmer” would be brought to trial and have to answer to the judicial system for his actions. What we found instead was that for all these years they were humored and appeased into thinking someone in our government was on their side.

The last of the families who have lived in this community and had hoped to win this David and GoHath battle, are now being told by their doctors that for their own physical health, they need to move from their homes and out of this community. What a sad day for everyone but the Eldred brothers and Willet Dairy. Now, instead of renting land from people in the community, they can just buy up the whole community and continue with their expansion. In the meantime, current residents will just have to work to rebuild 200+ years of family history somewhere else.

reprinted from MOONSHADOWS, Nov. 2004
Shadow Publications POB 255
Sycamore, Ill 60178
http://www.mnshadows.com

Animal factories get permission to pollute. New York State agencies set different standards for agricultural industries.

Letter to the Editor
Finger Lakes Times

Rules on CAFOs out of balance
New York State has changed from a family business to a factory operation owned by large corporation. Factory farms are called “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations� (CAFO). CAFOs raise chickens, pigs, or cattle for food. These factory farm animals are never allowed to graze in a pasture. Instead they spend their short miserable lives crowded in large barns that are comparable to a factory warehouse. Ion the interest of profit, CAFOs will house thousands of animals at a time.
Consequently, CAFOs produce large amounts of animal waste that is removed from the barn (warehouse) and is deposited and stored in “lagoons�. A lagoon is a kinder, gentler word for a CAFO cesspool containing feces and urine. These cesspools resemble large dark lakes that release noxious gases into the air. Moreover, these cesspools leach into the ground killing lakes and rivers, in addition to contaminating drinking water.
There are 600 animal factories or CAFOs operating and polluting New York State. Neighbors of CAFOs have witnessed their air quality diminish, their water supplies contaminated, their health deteriorate, and their property values decline. CAFO neighbors have little or no recourse because CAFOs are considered farms and are protected from the consequences of their actions by the New York state Right to Farm Act.
The intent of the New York State Right to farm Act is to protect the farmer by providing a different set of environmental standards for farmers than the environmental standards imposed upon manufacturers and factories. Of course the family farmer that the Act is designed to protect is very different from the corporate CAFO. However, the impact that a CAFO has on the environment is not much different than that of a factory. Moreover, New York State would never allow a factoryto store chemical waste in an open “lagoon�, but a CAFO can.
In conclusion, if both a CAFO and factory farm have the same devastating effect on our environment than why are CAFOs protected under the New York state Right to Farm Act? Certainly our representatives in Albany never intended the New York state Right to Farm Act to become a license to kill.

Kimberly D. Hutchinson
Clyde, NY
Wayne County
Letter to the Finger Lakes Times
Oct 7, 2004

There is an active weblog regarding the CAFO problems in Preble New York.
See:

http://www.prebleny.com/index.php?cat=15

See also the photos taken in Preble:
http://www.prebleny.com/images/ManureDumpPA/index.htm

Letter to Auburn Citizen
Oct 21, 2004

The failure of The Citizen’s Sunday story on phosphorus loading in the lakes is that the usual suspects point to all the wrong reasons for the increase.
Telling residents that lawn waste and pet droppings are responsible is as disingenuous as any public statement since the Cayuga County Health Department’s attempt to blame e.coli in Ledyard drinking water on dead snakes.
The source of the phosphorus is the millions upon millions of pounds of cow manure spread all over the southern watersheds by ambitious dairy farmers who operate on the edge of the law and in defiance of normal “good neighbor� principles.
Drive up Lane Road in East Genoa and take a look and whiff. Or try Mahaney Road near the Tompkins County line. Cruise the ridge on Indian Field Road. Sniff the air. Take the fall foul air tour. The unpleasant odor you inhale is not the stink of normal farming, but milk factories run out of control, producing enormous amounts of cow manure that is slathered on the hillsides that drain into the lakes’ tributaries. Millions upon millions of gallons of cow manure are spread on crop land surrounding these farms. Guess what? Phosphorus is a prime pollutant in that waste.
The apologists for this environmental nightmare will tell you that everything is being done according to law. Once you get a whiff or a look, you might want to challenge that law.
How absurd to blame yard waste and pet droppings on the increase of phosphorus loading in the lakes. The watershed groups, who are accountable to no one, and Cornell, in particular, need to stop covering up for Big Ag’s sloppy ways and good farmers ought to stop apologizing for bad ones. Pets, indeed!

Soil and Water Conservation Society
Connie Mather 5H Route 3, Lock, NY 13092
February 26, 2004

Neighbors Perspective and Action Appeal
My name is Connie Mather. I am part of a growing group of citizens looking for ways to protect our families, our properties and our natural resources from the effects of CAFO’s (also known as factory farms), in rural upstate New York. I’d like to share with you the words of a famous politician on agricultural policy:

“... To put an end to our backwardness in agriculture and to provide the country with the largest possible amount of market grain, cotton, and so forth, it was necessary to pass to large-scale farming, for only large-scale farming can employ modem machinery, utilize all the achievements of agricultural science and provide the largest possible quantity of market produce. [we] took the path of organizing large farms because it enabled us, in the course of several years, to cover the entire country with large farms and provide the country with the largest possible quantity of market produce. “

This is a pretty good description of the course of agriculture in this country and in New York State over the last few decades. This comes from a speech of Joseph Stalin in 1946, in Moscow, as presented to a meeting of voters of the Stalin Electoral District. History tells us that the collective farms, so similar to the government subsidized corporate factory farms of the USA today, were a devastating failure. In the 70’s the USDA asked our successful USA farmers to make trips to Soviet Russia to help them. After studying the situation there, our agriculturalists recommended that the workers be given small plots of land that they could grow their own product on. The smaller plots out-produced the larger collective farms by such incredible numbers that it offered a whole new perspective on smaller farms as sustainable to the Soviets. I have to wonder why the USA, at great expense to the taxpayers, is now subsidizing and promoting the same kind of “advanced farming” that failed so miserably in the U.S.S.R, while doing little to support the sustainable smaller farms so integral to the health of our rural society.

Now I would like to address factory farming on a more personal note, from a neighbor’s perspective.

I live in a small hamlet called East Genoa, by what has become one of the largest dairy CAFO’s in the Northeastern United States. It is one of about 23 dairy CAFO’s that reside in the once beautiful Finger Lakes Region of the Empire State. My husband and I moved to this agricultural district and bought 10 acres in hopes of raising our son in a clean, safe environment. I was going to try to teach school and fulfill a lifelong goal of having a successful organic strawberry u-pick farm, with a possible second high-profit low yield crop to allow for back-up diversity if needed. I was raised on a farm in Pennsylvania and knew that I wanted to farm as a second profession after teaching for 10 years in Philadelphia. None of that was to happen. Staying outdoors, getting healthy enough, or affording water filtering systems and sources has made that impossible here.
First of all, most days of the year, the stench on my property and in my house is so bad that it makes us sick. I mean it makes us literally SICK. I didn’t need to see the research results of latest studies of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions to believe that the CAFO next door is emitting noxious gases. I didn’t need more research studies that showed the particulate matter and the ascetic acid from the silage bunkers are making it very near impossible to work outside or sleep inside in my house many nights.

Year-round spraying of liquid manure has made most of the fields around my home simply dumping grounds for seas of waste. In our community, upwards of 7500 bovine creatures contribute to huge cesspools that are uncovered and “geo” lined. For those of you who are wondering about “geo’ lined pits, that means no cement or synthetic linings, just holes dug into the ground. The detergents and any bad milk that can’t be sold is also dumped or piped into those open lakes of manure, along with the hormones and antibiotics tbat might be in the milk and manure. After that waste ferments for an undetermined amount of time, it is sprayed from the backs of huge tankards the size of tractor-trailers, onto the land or the snow. Summer, fall, winter, spring, it doesn’t matter. The waste is thrown on the fields. I am not a soil specialist, but somehow I can’t see whcre soil is benefiting from that kind of dumping. I see the runoff going into road ditches and small tributaries as I drive along the road. Those waterways feed the lakes of Cayuga and Owasco.

Huge trucks and large farm machinery barrel down the highways (Route 34 is yards away from my front door), The roads get wet with liquid manure, it dries and with the heavy traffic, becomes a fine dust that enters our home, our barn, our cars, and our lungs. Mowing the lawn, tending to our few animals or trying to garden is usually a “noxious affair”, after which we are sometimes sick with respiratory illnesses, headaches and even dizziness and nausea. This year, we couldn’t put up Christmas lights or decorations for the winter holidays because we couldn’t stay outside in the smell long enough to put up the lights.

In my opinion, the unnatural environment that the dairy creates has created an unnatural number of mosquitoes and flies.

Mosquito swarms seem to be a growing problem in our fields, yard and gardens. Could it be that the swarms of mosquitoes are coming from the thousands of tires that cover the silage bunkers kitty-cornered from our property? For the rest of the residents in Cayuga County, a fine of $35.00 per tire is levied if we have tires on our properties. That is because the County Health Department believes that tires lying around are breeding grounds for mosquitoes that carry West Nile Virus! Maybe those farm-exempt tires are marked somehow so the mosquitoes won’t breed there.

Swarming flies are also in abundance where we live. Even if the smell doesn’t get us if we try to BB-Q, the flies will swarm our food and us on a really busy spreading day. This type of swarming in excess is being sighted all around rural America where CAFOs proliferate.

One of the most disappointing aspects of living here is seeing the creeks, brooks and wetlands disappear.

Expanding numbers of livestock means expanded amounts of water consumed by my corporate neighbors. According to one management plan, each cow needs about 30 to 60 gallons of water a day. What that has meant for our communities is that wetlands are drained into large holding ponds, and small, once pristine brooks and creeks now are intermittently flowing, or diverted into holding ponds, or they are so contaminated with runoff that you can’t recognize them. Runoff of liquid wastes into our tributaries and sometimes directly into the Finger Lakes is common. I believe this runoff is inevitable because of the year round spreading and the volume of waste that needs to be gotten rid of by ever-expanding dairies. The marine life has suffered significantly with this violation and mismanagement of our precious natural resources. Currently, there is no mandatory testing of the waste from the CAFO’s in NY State before it is applied, so we have no idea what is ending up in our soil and water resources.

As a former educator, I believe that if you as professionals, educators and scientists alike, truly understand what is happening in the name of “advanced farming” in New York, you will take ethical and appropriate actions to rectify the policies and the lack of enforcement that allows these factory farms to assault every aspect of the lives of the rural peoples of New York State. The people of this region of New York have a strong heritage of political and social courage. This area was the center of the Women’s Rights Movement, an integral part of the Underground Railroad, and was the seed of strong religious movements. This heritage is reflected in the spirit of the real farmers and residents who are now mobilized and taking whatever actions they can to save our rural society and defend our Constitutional rights to protect our properties. Sustainable agriculture has a long, proud history of economic success, environmental stewardship,
conservation of natural resources and quality food production. We need your support.

The American Public Health Association has already asked for a moratorium on the building of all new CAFO’s until the empirical and anecdotal evidence can be considered. They have concluded, based on the research already reported, that there seem to be health risks to the workers on CAFO’s and to the residents of rural communities surrounding the CAFO’s.

I am here today to implore you, as Water and Soil Conservationists, to support that moratorium, and based on the very credible research already established, to take this a step further, and

CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON ALL EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACTORY FARMS UNTIL THE EPA, DEC AND STATE AND COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CAN MAN THEMSELVES WITH ENOUGH PERSONNEL AND ENFORCEABLE REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THE HALT TO THE DESECRATION OF NEW YORK’S NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE HEALTH OF ITS RURAL SOCIETY.

Letter to the Editor of the Finger Lakes Times
This is a comment on the article by Nancy Ward about hog farms, “Input Sought On Hog Farm,” appearing Thursday September 23, 2004.

The torch of liberty, freedom, and the pursuit if happiness bums bright in the little Wayne County Town of Galen. I would like to praise the Galen Town Board and Galen Town Supervisor, Mr. Leo Jenkins, for the courage to listen to the people and do the right thing. A moratorium has been adopted in the Town of Galen to give residents and the Town Board time to study the impact that a proposed hog factory farm will have on our community.

Small towns across the Finger Lakes Region have been bullied by Albany, the Office of Agriculture and Markets, and the New York State Farm Bureau to allow these livestock factories to enter into their communities, and cause havoc.
Horror stories have been coming in from Yates, Cayuga, Wayne, and Seneca counties about the water and air pollution that these livestock factories cause, and yet our elected officials do nothing, and leave the people of these counties with a sense of overwhelming helplessness. Now we, the citizens, are getting together to let our New York State legislators know that we are not collateral damage because we choose to live in this beautiful region.

We are not against farming. Farming has been a way of life in this wonderful area for 300 years or more. We the people of New York State have not changed but livestock farming has. Farming has chosen a course of industrialization by way of factory farming. Factory farming is a far cry from the traditional way of farming. Farmers are now operating factory farms that may house well over 2,000 animals that have an overwhelming potential to pollute. Moreover, these factory farms expect the people of New York to allow them all the consideration and benefits of protection afforded to smaller, traditional, farms under the New York State Right To Farm Act. This is just plain WRONG, and the people of this State are calling for legislative reform that deals with these livestock factories NOW.

Submitted by
John T. Ellwood, Sr.
Glover Road
Clyde, New York
(315) 923-2010

Thursday, September 23, 2004
By NANCY WARD

Finger Lakes Times

GALEN — Residents concerned about the impact of a proposed 2,000-plus head hog farm will get the chance to have their concerns heard tonight.

A public meeting will be at 6:30 p.m. at the municipal building on South Park Street in Clyde.

Galen Supervisor Leo Jenkins said a property owner on Tyre Road has applied to the town Planning Board for a permit for the operation but no decision has been made.

“We need to do a little more research on it,� Jenkins said.

He said the property has been farmed in the past and most recently was used as a holding area for cows bought at one sale and taken to another.

“It’s zoned agricultural now but there is some concern about the wells surrounding the area,� Jenkins said. “We need to find out if it is compatible with the area.�

“It’s not the average farm for this area,� he added.

Santo Montemorano Sr., who owns property adjacent to the proposed farm, said he is worried that runoff from the farm will contaminate the water supply in the area. His sons also own land nearby.

He said many of the wells nearby are fed from an aquifer that runs under the gravel and the property bordering the Clyde River and wetlands.

“There’s only 70-some acres, and we have questions about the disposal of waste from the operation,� he said.

He said the farm would house more than 2,000 pigs that will be raised in buildings until it’s time to send them to slaughter.

“It’s a factory farm not a farm as we know it,� he said.

“We’re all farmers around [here] and we have the right to farm but not to pollute,� he said.

Montemorano said with that number of pigs being raised indoors they would need antibiotics to keep them healthy.

“They’ll bring them in, feed them, sell them and all that is left is the waste,� he said.

He said he does not allow sludge or other possible contaminants to be used on his farmland.

“For 50 years we’ve protected the water supply,� he said, adding that a farm of such as the new operation could ruin it overnight.

“It’s just not a suitable site,� Montemorano said.

Hatfield Pork of Pennsylvania has recently identified three counties in central New York as likely sites for new factory hog facilities to be owned and run by local farmers under contract. 
With the assistance of Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE), Hatfield Pork has approached farmers in Herkimer, Oneida, and Madison Counties. 
As of a year ago, perhaps no more than a dozen contract hog farms existed in NY.  However, to our south in Pennsylvania as well as in the Midwest, the incursion of industrial hog production into rural areas has caused explosive conflict over pollution and deteriorating quality of life for local residents. 
Contract hog raising follows the agri-business model developed over the last several decades in the poultry business, at the expense of thousands of small independent farmers, at great cost to the environment, and to the detriment of food quality and safety and animal welfare.
The corporation dictates all aspects of production
Although details of the Hatfield contracts are not yet available, they will likely follow the typical contract farming model which gives the corporation control of all aspects of animal raising, while the farmer retains legal liability and all overhead costs.
Hatfield and CCE describe the proposed operation as a part-time supplemental activity for full-time farmers.  The contract farmer agrees to construct a specialized, single-purpose facility and to purchase associated equipment to Hatfield’s specifications; Hatfield assists with financing but the farmer pays these capital costs.
Farmers are enticed with these rosy projections.  For less than two hours of work per day, they can anticipate approximately $15,000 net income per year for the first ten years.  After that time, when their loan is paid off, they can expect about $75,000 in annual net income.
The automated barn is designed to accommodate 2,180 hogs per turn, and there are several turns per year.  Hogs are confined 24 hours a day, and feed is mechanically distributed to each pen. 
Confinement operations routinely include antibiotics in the feed to boost growth rates and control infectious disease, which would run rampant among the genetically uniform livestock housed in such crowded, unnatural conditions.
Lakes of hog manure
Excrement drops through the floor into an open manure holding pond, which is emptied and land-applied once or twice a year.  CCE cautions farmers not to undertake this venture unless they have 250 acres of fields on which to spread the liquid manure.  Hogs, feed and medication are provided by Hatfield, and at all times the hogs are owned by Hatfield, but responsibility for disposing of dead animals and manure rests with the farmer. 
The scenario as laid out by Hatfield and CCE may sound attractive to some farmers, but the history of both contract hog and poultry farming should lead farmers and others invested in the future of rural life and the food supply to be highly skeptical.
Confinement operations by their nature raise health, environmental, and humanitarian concerns.  Although residents who have taken Hatfield’s tour of Pennsylvania farms report relatively clean operations, the contract-farming model raises serious questions for farmers and their communities.
If something goes wrong – and the history of contract hog and poultry operations is filled with examples of things going wrong, with serious health and environmental impacts – the farmer is the responsible party, not the corporation, and the only recourse communities and affected citizens may have results in putting a small farmer out of business.
Promises to local economy suspect
It’s a common assumption that the local economy will benefit from the arrival of contract farms; but, as a part of a large vertically integrated system, contract farms provide make minimal local contributions.  Infrastructure and inputs are not locally produced or supplied, so the money spent by the farmer on his operation flows right out of the region.  Contract farms do not support local, small-scale processing facilities, and the depressed wholesale prices that result from these operations lower the bar for small independent operators.  Finally, these operations, with their potential for pollution, can drive away small business and depress neighboring property values.
Communities that may become hosts for these operations should understand the potential impacts and ask challenging questions of those who are promoting the program.
From the farmer’s perspective, the financial scenario outlined by Hatfield should be closely scrutinized.  Farmers need to work out for themselves what happens to the projected net income if the price and cost assumptions prove incorrect. 
Right-to-Farm as a shelter
Concerned citizens’ efforts to discourage factory farms in New York have had little success because of the state’s “right-to-farm” law.  Enacted to help shield family farms from onerous local ordinances and frivolous nuisance suits, this law has been leveraged by powerful interests to legitimize sewage sludge spreading, aerial pesticide spraying, and factory farm practices. It has also been used by the state to prevent municipalities from adopting measures to safeguard the health of their residents when it comes to industrial agriculture.
We encourage RFFP members and others who are interested in a sustainable farm economy to learn more about the implications of contract farming, speak with neighbors and state and local officials, and make sure the important questions are addressed; the most important tool we have is public awareness and visibility before factory farms are in place.
Particularly Useful Resources
• Pulitzer Prize-winning series by the North Carolina News & Observer about contract hog farming in NC, HYPERLINK “http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1996/public-service/works/about.html” http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1996/public-service/works/about.html
• Presentation by John Ikerd, University of Missouri Professor Emeritus, to the 2003 Sustainable Hog Summit, HYPERLINK “http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/HogSummit.htm#_ftn1” http://www.ssu. missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/Hog Summit.htm#_ftn1
• Sierra Club factory farm report, http://www.sierra club.org/factoryfarms/rapsheets/states/asp

By Jim Manning, farmer and RFFP board member, and Tracy Frisch, executive director

From New Connections (Winter2003-04), quarterly newsletter of the Regional Farm & Food Project, 295 Eighth St., Troy, NY 12180, 518/271-0744, , http://www.capital.net/~farmfood/

 
 Though Central New York water is for the most part relatively clean, the proliferation of animal factories will increasingly foul our local fresh water resources

                                                                      
 Published in the Syracuse Post Standard Thursday, July 01, 2004
 
 Though Central New York water is for the most part relatively clean, the proliferation of animal factories will increasingly foul our local fresh water resources.
 
When urban dwellers think about farming, they picture pastoral scenes with a few acres of lush green fields, and happy farm animals munching away in the sunshine. However this rural landscape is changing for the worst in order to accommodate industrial animal production facilities, known in the industry as concentrated animal feeding operations - CAFOs. This is not the traditional family farmer much revered in American history. Though some CAFOs may be owned by a farm family, in terms of disregard for land and water resources, they are better compared with most other large-scale industrial operations. This is not the beloved family farmer. This is agribusiness.
 
 When you think about Central New York’s water resources, think about the effect of animal factories that contain thousands of pigs or cows or chickens. Then think about poop. If your neighbor has a CAFO with 2,500 dairy cows, and those cows produce an average of 23 tons of poop per day, and that neighbor dumps that poop into a nearby “lagoon"every day, and that lagoon leaches into the ground water and leaks into the nearby stream, which meanders on down to the lake you swim in or draw your water from - how long will the water supply remain pristine?
 
 You would thinkthe state Department of Environmental Conservation or maybe the attorney general would have something to say about water pollution caused by CAFOs. According to the state Department of Agriculture, corporate animal factories have “right to farm” exemptions from environmental laws guaranteed by the state constitution. Laws passed to protect the rural landscape are being misused to protect the hogs (the two-legged ones).
 
 A conversation with Attorney General Eliot Spitzer or his partner in disengagement, Marty Mack, yields only a shrug of the shoulders. The attorney general would rather chase down the high-profile Wall Street traders. Meanwhile, Joe and Jane Little-Farmer and family are dealing with contaminated wells and hydrogen sulfide and ammonia fumes. Poor Jane can’t even go out to plant her kitchen garden any more the stink from her neighbors CAFO is too overwhelming. And when the manure enters the water supply, the CAFO neighbors and all the rest of us are in danger of infection from the pathogenic microbes in the animal waste. Remember the 400,000 cases of gastroenteritis due to Cryptosporidium in Milwaukee’s water supply in 1993?
 
 We now havemore than 600 CAFOs in this “lush green” state. In 1997, the Scorecard Web site ranked Wyoming County as the county with the most waste (the most wasted county?). We in Onondaga County ranked 20th out of 53 counties. We do have CAFOs in our own back yard, and more are coming. For example, Hatfield Pork has identified three central New York counties as likely sites for their new hog CAFOs.
 
 There are ways of farming that produce plenty of food and do not harm the environment. Factory farms do not increase the food supply and the taxpayer heavily subsidizes them. Over the past 15 years, the number of hog farms has dropped, yet the nation’s hog inventory remains almost the same. Animal farming used to be sustainable, with smaller numbers of animals on each farm. What has changed is the concentration of animals, with the resultant rape of rural land, polluting of the water supply, destruction of the social fabric of rural communities and hideous abuse of farm animals.
 
 In Central New York, we have grown accustomed to the luxury of clean water. If we want to keep our water supply pure, we are going to have to fight to protect it from corporate agribusiness. Let your legislators know you want our precious water resources protected.
 
 Yvonne Tasker-Rothenberg of Jamesville chairs the Sierra Club’s Atlantic Chapter, Farm & Food Committee
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

The Coon family, neighbors in the community, and myself as well, have
been in contact with The New
York State Health Department, The Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), The New
York State EPA office, The Army Corps of Engineers, The New York State
Attorney General’s
office, as well as county offices to discuss problems associated with
Willet Dairy Corporation. What
we have all found through our countless calls, e-mails and letters is
that these organizations seem to
take turns passing responsibility back and forth, while residents of
Cayuga County fight for what seems
to be a simple right in America. Water! Not just any kind of water,
CLEAN water. Drinkable water.

Agribusiness Uses Farm Laws as Cover
EarthVision Environmental News

CAYUGA COUNTY, NY, July 20, 2001 - Current environmental laws in the
United States that were
created to help small farmers are now being abused by corporations that
have found ways through the
cracks of the same laws in the name of agriculture. The Coon Family in
Cayuga County New York
can tell you how well the current agricultural laws are working for
residents there. They have
witnessed first hand what life near a ‘farmer’ is like.

Dennis Eldred started his dairy business in 1978. Fred Coon said that
by 1979, seemingly overnight, the
company suddenly bloomed into a major dairy operation, with the support
of New York’s major
environmental/health departments, as well as colleges and universities
such as Cornell University. He
rightfully has their backing. He is operating as an agricultural
operation, and therefore falls under the
laws that were made to regulate farms that operate on a much smaller
scale.

Fred Coon has lived in his home all his life. The family holds deeds to
their property from 1797. He
married Pearl, raised their children and now is afraid to have his
grandchildren come over, and
rightfully so, for health reasons. The well on their property is
contaminated with e-coli.

The water that flows through the creek on the Coon property originates
from the Willet Dairy property.
Their property touches their ‘farmer’ neighbor, Willet Dairy
Corporation, on 2 sides. The corporation,
which operates a ‘farm’ with over 6,500 dairy cows, is one of many
agri-businesses that fall under the
current laws that are meant to help the smaller farmers, that instead
give more power to these growing
agri-businesses.

The result is that the care and concern for the health of the general
public is no longer as important as
the amount of revenue the state brings in through corporations like
Willet Dairy.

The Coon family, and others in their community have been fighting a
losing battle for the last 2 years.

The problem is a corporation with the amount of dairy cows Willet has
produces what should be called
industrial waste. Instead, Willet Dairy falls through the cracks of the
laws intended to help small
farmers stay in business. Imagine that each of those 6,500 cows produce
approximately 14 lbs of
waste per day. That works out to 91,000 lbs of waste per day. That is
not the amount of waste that an
average farmer produces on a dairy farm, and not an amount of waste
that can be managed properly,
as the residents of Cayuga County can tell you.

The manure is contaminating the waters in the county. From rivers and
streams, to private wells
through out the community. E-coli has been found when residents go
through New York State
Department of Health certified water testing companies to have their
wells tested. Incredibly, when the
health department makes its way out there, they find no e-coli. The
water is safe to drink, although no
state agency has accepted any offer to enjoy a glass of water straight
from the faucet in the Coon
home. Their simplified answer to the Coon family, and other families in
the community is to buy bottled
water. That is good and fine when you have a job with a state or
federal agency that pays you well
enough to buy bottled water if you choose, but not if you are retired
and living off social security to
make ends meet. They already have enough of an expense getting their
wells tested from someone
they feel they can trust. Sadly, it seems none of those people work for
the government in New York.

Under current EPA laws, we have what is called The Safe Drinking Water
Act. The act states:

“The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which celebrated its 25th
anniversary in 1999, is the main
federal law that ensures the quality of Americans’ drinking water.
Under SDWA, EPA sets standards
for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and
water suppliers who implement those
standards. “

That works for most Americans, but not if you are living in America,
drinking, bathing, cooking and
cleaning with water from a well. I asked an official at the EPA how
there could not be any laws that
regulated water from private wells. There once was a belief that ground
water just took care of itself.
The growth of agri-business, along with other environmental impacts,
have made environmental
agencies re-think their original theory, but it seems not quite enough
yet to pass any type of legislation
to protect drinking water from private wells. He also said that the
Clean Water Act has been held up in
Congress for years, they have not even looked at it.

The Clean Water Act, which governs surface water contamination, it is
supposed to assure us that
agricultural run-off is not contaminating surface water. Fred and Pearl
Coon have a creek that runs
into a pond on their property. The pond is graduated at levels from 2’
- 12’. You cannot see further than
approximately 2’ in the pond because it is filled with liquid manure.
The Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) has been out on a regular basis to test water from
the creek on their property,
they have found e-coli in the water, and have seen the manure in the
pond. Yet, for some reason, no
action has been taken to find the source of the contamination in their
pond. I did speak with Gene
Kelly, the Assistant Attorney General who is investigating this case.
He has been investigating the
events in Cayuga County since June of 2000. In a telephone conversation
with Gene Kelly in
November of 2000, the following conversation occurred:

“You can look at the pond on the Coon property and see and smell that
there is liquid manure sitting in
there, why is it that nothing is being done about that? This is a
direct violation of the Clean Water Act,
as it is supposed to protect our rivers and streams from agricultural
run-off. If the Coon family creek
and pond has liquid manure in it, and if the source of their water
comes directly from Willet Dairy, why
is nothing being done about this?”

He agreed and added, “In order to be able to prove something in court
though, you need to be able to
do more than just say it looks like manure. You have to be able to show
that it is in fact manure. You
don’t have to necessarily prove where it came from, because that can be
an impossible task. But given
the fact that there is a very large dairy farm, with over 7,000 cows,
just upstream from them, it seems
pretty likely that if there is manure in their stream, that is where it
came from.”

“You are right.” He went on to say, “There are federal statutes that
could be invoked. There also are
state statutes, and quite frankly, we would probably just proceed under
the state statutes.”

“So then you will be testing the sediment in their pond then?”

He answered; “Yes there will be a lot of different tests that will be
done. It won’t just be well water.”

To date no one has been out to take a sediment sample from the Coon
pond.

The Coon family, neighbors in the community, and myself as well, have
been in contact with The New
York State Health Department, The Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), The New
York State EPA office, The Army Corps of Engineers, The New York State
Attorney General’s
office, as well as county offices to discuss problems associated with
Willet Dairy Corporation. What
we have all found through our countless calls, e-mails and letters is
that these organizations seem to
take turns passing responsibility back and forth, while residents of
Cayuga County fight for what seems
to be a simple right in America. Water! Not just any kind of water,
CLEAN water. Drinkable water.
Water free of e-coli and other unnamed bacteria.

They also ask those agencies to help them clean their water as it flows
through their creeks, streams,
and eventually into Cayuga Lake. Residents who live along the lakeshore
have found liquid manure in
their lake as well.

The residents also would like the DEC and Army Corps to stop permitting
Willet Dairy to drain
wetlands on his property. The wetlands serve as a buffer to help
‘naturally’ clean the land. While this
cannot perform a miracle on the issues that are present in Cayuga
County, every little bit does help. As
Americans we have the false belief that our government is protecting
our wetlands. They are
protected, as long as an agricultural business does not need that land
for ‘improvements’ to their
property that benefit the farmer.

Sandra Doran from the Army Corp of Engineers stated that under the
clean water act, a lot of farming
activities are exempt. She advised me to look up the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), part 323.4
(a)iii. CFR 323.4 (a)iii states:

“Cultivating means physical methods of soil treatment employed within
established farming, ranching
and silviculture lands on farm, ranch, or forest crops to aid and
improve their growth, quality or yield.”

These ‘improvements’ can mean anything from a new driveway to new
mobile homes for the workers
on their land. As far as Sandra and the Army Corp of Engineers are
concerned, “He is in compliance
with all our regulations.” She was unable to comment on if he was in
violation of the Clean Water Act
as that falls under the jurisdiction of state of New York under the
Department of Environmental
Conservation.

She understands and sympathizes with the landowners in that community,
but she says, “They have to
understand which violations are with which agency.”

Is it the job of those who are working for the people of the United
States to make sure that laws are
being followed, or is it this a job that we, as American tax-paying
citizens have to pick apart each and
every violation and call up each individual agency that holds
jurisdiction to tell them what they should be
doing?

There is one small spot of hope for this community. It is obvious that
Willet Dairy is in violation of the
Clean Water Act. What needs to be done is for the sediment in the Coon
pond to be tested to see what
exactly it is. Since no one on a state level is willing to do that, and
if these people can prove
incompetence within the state agencies, the EPA can be brought in under
section 1431 and take
emergency power over the situation. Section 1431 states:

“Sec 1431 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the
Administrator, upon receipt of
information that a contaminant which is present in or is likely to
enter a public water system or an
underground source of drinking water may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the
health of persons, and that appropriate State and local authorities
have not acted to protect the health
of such persons, may take such sections as he may deem necessary in
order to protect the health of
such persons. To the extent he determines it to be practicable in light
of such imminent endangerment,
he shall consult with State and local authorities in order to confirm
the correctness of the information
on which action proposed to be taken under this subsection is based and
to ascertain the action which
such authorities are or will be taking. The action which the
Administrator may take may include (but
shall not be limited to) (1) issuing such orders as may be necessary to
protect the health of persons
who are or may be users of such system (including travelers), including
orders requiring the provision
of alternative water supplies by persons who caused or contributed to
the endangerment, and (2)
commencing a civil action for appropriate relief, including a
restraining order or permanent or
temporary injunction.”

Now it is the job of the people in the community to prove that the
state agencies have not in fact done
their job, and hope that the EPA can be granted power under this act.

This problem is not only in the state of New York; it is a problem that
needs to be addressed on a
national basis. People are facing similar problems in other areas of
New York, throughout the Midwest,
and currently in North Carolina, the EPA did invoke Section 1431 in a
similar situation with the hog
farming industry there. We need to redefine, on a national level, what
we consider to be a ‘farmer’ as
well as what a ‘farm’ is and what is actually industry vs. agriculture.

Dennis Eldred was contacted and given the opportunity to discuss the
issues involving his dairy
company. His response was, “I don’t know what the issues are.” He said,
“I am not really going to get
into this, and you really don’t know what you are talking about. This
thing is has reached a point of
absurdity; this is not something that I am going to entertain.”

We need to entertain a national discussion of these issues and redefine
what we consider to be a
“farmer” and what a farm is, and what is actually industry.
From
Phil Fredericks <pjf@nwark.com>

Date
Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:24:41 -0500

Reply-To
Phil Fredericks <pjf@nwark.com>

Big corporate mega dairies are swallowing up our family farms. Some of these farms are aggressively pursuing some of my neighboring farmer’s lands, to increase their size. 

Farm Wives United
POB 165
North Java, NY 14113
http://www.farmwivesunited.org

Testimony for P A Dairy Crisis Hearing @ Keystone College 11/17/03

My fiance and I are dairy fanners from Cayuga County, which is in the Finger Lakes region of Central New York. We both come from long lines of family farmers.

I have been asked to come speak here today to tell you about what I see happening in my county.

Fanners in general tend not to talk about their problems, lest you be considered a poor fanner or bad businessperson. This is just not true any more.

Who else in this country is expected to make a living, pay taxes, and raise a family on the wages they earned 25 years ago? Our veterinarians, dentists, carpenters, and even our garbage haulers seem to be entitled to a cost of living increase. Why not farmers?

In my own home county of picturesque rolling hills and beautiful lakes, we are seeing a change-taking place. And it scares me.

Big corporate mega dairies are swallowing up our family farms. Some of these farms are aggressively pursuing some of my neighboring farmer’s lands, to increase their size.

Two examples I can give you:
One is of a smaller dairy fanner whose lands adjoin a 3000+-head CAFO operation. This dairy farmer told me that on several occasions the CAFO owner has come into the smaller farmer’s barn seeking to buy him out. His last visit was to ask him “How much longer do you think you are going to be able to stay in business? Because I want your land?
Another example is of a CAFO owner suing a neighboring crop farmer for some of his farmland. This lawsuit is costing the smaller crop farmer thousands of dollars in legal fees. The CAFO owner’s intent appears to be forcing the crop farmer into bankruptcy.

Recently six of the largest dairy farms in our county were awarded $2.8 million dollars in taxpayers’ money just to study their manure problems. I do not want my tax money going to support this type of “Farmer’s Help”. What do you think that this money would do for the many other farmers who are currently doing a good job with their manure?

These larger farms have banded together and collectively bargained for bigger milk prices and lower hauling fees than their smaller farm neighbors are entitled to, even though the milk may go to the same plant for processing.

These farms have paid financial advisors who aggressively pursue as much subsidy and grant money as they can get. And they also hire professional public relation firms to project them in a favorable light.

I am definitely not against subsidies and grants to help farmers. However, I feel that the farmers that the American consumers want to see producing their food, and the ones that truly need the help just are not getting it.
I have also heard that some of the large dairy farmers in our area are lobbying our senators, telling them that the farmers in our county need money to pay for new housing for their workers. New Housing? We went without a furnace last winter in our farmhouse because of low milk prices. And we still don’t have the money to pay for one.

I have thought many times of quitting farming, and if I could have talked my fiancée into it, we would be out already. Not because I don’t love what we do, but because of the stress level that lower milk prices than the cost of production incurs upon us. However, he has refused to quit. And a quote that was often said of his father, who was a Navy pilot at the end of World War II, a Cornell graduate, and a prosperous dairy farmer. “You can tell a Dutch, but you can’t tell him much”.

So I started to investigate, read and educate myself on why we aren’t getting more money for our milk. And, what I have found out about what is going on behind our backs by some big co-ops and corporations that claim to speak in the name of the farmer has disgusted me. Some of which you will hear testimony on today.

I also see that part of our own land grant universities are perpetuating the decline in family farms. And also destroying our rural communities.
The Co-ops, land grants, and big business all have power to speak on the behalf of large farms. Who has the power to return to the public what they want? A family sized dairy farm. There is a real problem with the imbalance of power.
What I have learned so far has made me very angry, and I don’t want to quit anymore. It’s one thing to quit farming as a personnel choice, but it is entirely different to be forced out. I want to stand up and be heard.

Thank you

A Cayuga County Farmer
Farm Wives United

 
 The use of methane digesters to produce energy from animal manure 
 may have a role in addressing environmental problems and meeting energy needs, 
 but the Sierra Club opposes public subsidies to such energy generation at 
 large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) because of the 
 environmental and social damage associated with them: polluting our waters and our 
 air;  excessive use of antibiotics and hormones; mistreatment of animals; and harming
 rural communities and small farms.

 
 SIERRA CLUB GUIDANCE: METHANE DIGESTERS AND CONCENTRATED ANIMAL 
FEEDING  OPERATION (CAFO) WASTE
 
METHANE DIGESTERS: WHAT ARE THEY?
 
 Methane digesters are anaerobic (low or no oxygen) chambers which 
 facilitate the breakdown of manure by anaerobic bacteria with the release of 
 methane and other gases as a byproduct of their metabolism, ammonia, nitrogen, 
 hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur dioxide.  Methane can be burned directly in stoves or 
 burners, to heat the digester, and it can be converted to electricity.  There 
 are several different types of systems but all commercially available systems 
 are expensive to install and require manure from a large number of animals to 
 operate.
 (Fulhage et al. 1993)
 
IS THERE A ROLE FOR METHANE DIGESTERS ON SMALL FARMS?
 
 The purpose of this policy is to address the use of methane 
 digesters to handle animal waste generated by concentrated animal feeding
operations 
 (CAFOs), as that term is used in the Clean Water Act.  However, it is also 
 necessary to consider the use of methane digesters on farms with livestock that 
 are not CAFOs.  This may include farms with large numbers of animal units 
 but with enough pasture (the animals go to the feed)  so that it is not an 
 "animal feeding operation” (AFO - the feed is brought to the animal).  It 
 may also include farm operation where the animals are confined but where the 
 number of animal units is below the regulatory definition of a CAFO.  The 
 Sierra Club believes that large farms with sufficient pasture are unlikely 
 candidates for methane digesters.  Therefore, this policy will use the term “small 
 farms” to describe farms that are not CAFOs.
 There is some evidence that methane digesters can offer significant manure
management benefits for small farm operations
(U.S. EPA Office of  Air and Radiation, Spring 2002).  
Digesters can substantially reduce odor  and releases of methane,
a powerful global-warming gas; can convert nitrogen into 
 ammonium, a form more available to plants and less likely to be carried away 
 with runoff  when the remaining waste solids are land-applied; can reduce fly 
 infestation; and can reduce the oxygen-depletion capacity of the remainin
waste although the liquid waste does still require additional treatment prior to 
 release. On the other hand, the land application of manure is the most 
 environmentally  responsible method of manure management where there is
sufficient  land to insure that manure application will not exceed soil absorption 
 capacity and crop and pasture nutrient needs and where the land application practices 
 do not cause a nuisance.  Therefore, the Sierra Club will consider the role of 
 methane digesters on small farms as requiring a case-by-case evaluation.  
 The use of  public money to subsidize methane digesters on small farms requires 
 public participation, community support, transparency and accountability.
 
DO DIGESTERS MITIGATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CAFOS?
 
CAFO waste streams are so large and contaminated that methane 
 digesters mitigate only a small fraction of their environmental damage. 
Equipment costs (U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Winter 2002) and maintenance for 
 conversion to energy are high. The biogas must have ammonia, moisture, and 
 particulate pollution (dust) removed, and then be compressed.  It requires 
 additional cleaning if it is to be sent into a natural gas pipeline. Most environmental
damage caused by CAFOs, however, remains unabated. Excess nutrients which run
off from waste lagoons or land-applied waste residuals suffocate the life out of our waters.
The volume of solid waste  remaining is not significantly diminished and requires
proper disposal (Iowa State University et al. 2002). The solid waste is often land applied
as “fertilizer” or “soil conditioner” but can pose problems because anaerobic
digestion does  not remove antibiotics and heavy metals passed by dosed swine and poultry.  
In  addition, although pathogen numbers decrease, the decrease may be ephemeral as 
 the pathogens regrow (Gibbs et al. 1997).  Numerous studies have demonstrated that these
toxic and pathogenic contaminants are entering the environment 
in substantial concentrations (Giger et al. 2003, Huang et al. 2001, 
 Kolpin et al. 2002, Union of Concerned Scientists et al. 2002). Further, digesters 
 pose a risk of explosion and create both nitrogenous and sulfurous gases which 
 may be emitted.  In sum, the potential for methane digesters to partially 
 mitigate  some of the extensive and pervasive damage caused by CAFOs does not 
 justify the use of this technology as a basis to support the development of new 
 CAFOs.
 
 Existing CAFOs may reduce the problems they are currently causing by 
 use of methane digesters.  However, they should be installed at the cost of 
 the CAFO owner and not from public subsidy.
 
HOW CAN THIS TECHNOLOGY BE UTILIZED ON SMALLER FARMS?
 

 While focusing primarily on serving CAFOs, the joint US EPA - USDS - 
 DOE AgStar program and a number of commercial providers have assisted in the 
 Development and installation of digesters on smaller farms.  Where methane 
 digesters are  able to operate on small, non-CAFO operations where antibiotic use 
 is limited to  treatment of disease rather than to promote faster weight gain, 
 where animals are free of growth hormones, and where toxic and pathogenic 
 byproducts of the digesters are controlled, there is a potential for methane digesters 
 to provide beneficial waste treatment. In such situations we should seriously 
 consider supporting smaller farms which are working towards adopting these 
 potentially sustainable practices by ensuring that they have fair access to 
 methane digester technology.
 
 
 HOW ARE METHANE DIGESTERS REGULATED?
 
 The federal AgStar program is aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and 
 Providing energy while protecting the environment.  AgStar has developed 
 interim standards, presently voluntary, for the construction and operation 
 of several types of manure digesters. (USDA-NRCS Biogas Interim Standards).  
 Though these federal standards require compliance with local and state 
 regulations,  the adequacy and  thoroughness of local and state regulations varies 
 substantially across the nation and some states do not address digester operations 
 at all  (Iowa State University et al. 2002).  This is not enough 
 environmental protection.  The Sierra Club wants the standards to become mandatory,
 inspections to be routine, and enforcement to be effective. We want 
 testing and limits protective of natural resources, human health, and human 
 quality of life to be set for metals, antibiotics, hormones, pathogens, 
 odor-producing and airborne compounds, and other pollutants released from digester 
 effluent,  residual sludge, solid waste fertilizer, and other byproducts of both CAFOs 
 and methane digesters.
 
 SHOULD CAFO-DERIVED METHANE GAS BE INCLUDED IN A
RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO?
 
NO.  A fuel that damages the environment is not “renewable”.  The 
 Anaerobic decomposition of CAFO manure, like the decomposition of garbage in 
 landfills, and waste-burning incinerators, is symptomatic of inefficient waste 
 treatment, treatment necessitated by inefficient, wasteful industries, 
 practices, and processes.  The Sierra Club favors conservation of materials and 
 energy, energy efficiency in processes and operations, and the recycling of 
 materials over the thermal destruction of materials for their energy content. Small 
 farms which utilize land sufficient to support the number of animals being raised can
be operated so that the land, air, and water are not degraded and the 
 waste can be recycled into the soil rather than accumulating and decomposing via 
 the  methane-generating anaerobic process.  CAFO waste lagoons and 
 landfills release heat, a waste of thermal energy and methane, a waste of chemical 
 energy. Capturing energy from these processes reduces some of the 
 environmental damage associated with these wasteful and inefficient systems but it 
 doesn’t move us towards a clean, renewable energy future which must be built upon 
 conservation, efficiency, and material recycling.
 
SHOULD DIGESTERS BE SUBSIDIZED?
 
 Subsidies for energy production from digesters have become a 
 frequent provision in energy legislation. Some fossil fuel use may be displaced by 
 methane digesters but it is a small amount. Similarly, some global warming 
 gas emissions are reduced by the use of digesters but CAFOs are a minor  
 contributor overall (U.S. EPA, April 2004).  The benefits of methane digesters 
 in terms of energy policy are small so subsidies for CAFO digesters are not 
 consistent with  good energy  policy. The fuel for digesters is  primarily CAFO 
 manure, a waste which depletes and degrades natural  resources. In evaluating 
 whether a subsidy under consideration might be supportable, one must consider whether 
 the subsidy would produce greater environmental gains if applied, for instance, 
 to a clean,renewable energy source.
 
For forward-thinking energy policy, we have to take a broader 
 perspective.   A public subsidy of  $200,000 in public money could provide about 50% 
 of the funding necessary for a digester which could collect the methane 
 generated by the water-flushed manure of 1,000 dairy  cows, methane which would 
 be burned for energy and would emit pollutants into the atmosphere.  That same 
 funding could pay for the installation of wind turbines which would supplant 
 fossil fuel burning on that same farm without emitting air pollutants.  That 
 same funding could subsidize smaller dairy farms which generate dry manure rather 
 than water-flushed manure; dry manure generates only minimal amounts of 
 methane.  As citizens, it is our responsibility to “do the math” and to ensure 
 that we are looking towards long-term solutions, not just short-term fixes.
 
 DO WE SUPPORT LEGISLATION PROMOTING DIGESTERS?
 
Many states are now considering legislation which promotes renewable 
 energy and includes methane digesters as a potential source for such energy. 
 The Sierra Club prefers clean, renewable energy sources over CAFO waste so 
 Legislation should be evaluated to ensure that support for clean renewable fuels 
 is strong.We also want to ensure that when methane digester energy is included 
 in legislation, it’s impacts are adequately regulated and small farms 
 are provided with fair access to the technology and to the energy grids which 
 permit the sale of the energy. Smaller farms may require additional access and 
provisions to allow them effective and fair access. Promoting the development and
deployment of clean renewable energy technology is a high priority for the Sierra Club. 
Club entities are encouraged  to advocate as much as possible for clean sources of
renewable energy, and to oppose inclusion in RPS legislation and other relevant proposals
of alleged sources  of renewable energy that encourage or subsidize environmentally
questionable practices, such as CAFOs or waste combustion.
 
 SHOULD WE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE NEW DIGESTERS IN OUR OWN COMMUNITIES?
 
The Sierra Club opposes the development of new CAFOs, and, therefore 
 opposes new CAFOs with methane digesters because the problems of CAFOS will 
 greatly outweigh the potential benefits of methane digesters.  However, 
 communities with existing CAFOs face a different situation.   In these communities, 
 the decision will be a local, case-by-case decision.  Local, state, and federal 
 environmental laws should be in place to protect public health and the environment 
 from the impacts of CAFOs.   Existing CAFO owners must comply with all these 
 laws and must have invested in the technologies needed to eliminate all forms 
 of pollution.
 
Sierra Club groups and communities should work together to analyze 
 and decide on a case-by-case basis whether the good results of installing a 
 methane digester at a local facility outweigh the bad. Methane digesters can provide 
 substantial relief from the odor and flies which plague nearby homes and 
 communities (Painet al. 1990, Wilkie 2000) as well as providing some reduction in 
 greenhouse gases and supplanting of fossil fuel use (Martin 2003, US EPA Office 
 of Air and Radiation 2003). Their emissions, however, must be controlled and  
 safe operation ensured.  The Club can assist communities by assuring that the public
participation process is robust, that all relevant information is  made available
to the public, and that federal, state, and local environmental regulations will
fully protect the environment and permit requirements will be met 
 and enforced.
 
 References and Citations
 Fulhage, Charles, Sievers D, Fischer JR (1993) Generating Methane 
 Gas from Manure. University of Missouri Extension Publication G1881.
 < <http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/caedac/dbases/MANURE1.html
 http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/caedac/dbases/MANURE1.html
 
Gibbs RA, Hu CJ, Ho GE, Unkiovich I (1997)  Regrowth of faecal 
 coliforms and salmonellae in stored biosolids and soil amended with biosolids. 
 Water SciTechnol 35(11-12):269-275.
 
 Giger W,  Alder AC, Golet EM, Kohler HE, McArdell CS, Molnar E, 
 Siegrist H Suter MJF. (2003) Occurrence and fate of antibiotics as trace
contaminants in wastewaters, sewage sludges, and surface waters.  Chimia 57(9):  485-491.
 
Huang CH, Renew JE, Smeby K L, Pinkston K and Sedlak DL 
 (2001).Assessment of Potential Antibiotic Contaminants in Water and Preliminary 
 Occurrence Analysis.Water Resources Update120:30-40
 
 Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group (2002) 
 Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study.
 <http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm
 http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm
 
Kolpin, D.W.; Edward T. Furlong; Michael T. Meyer; E. Michael 
 Thurman;Steven D.Zaugg;  Larry B. Barber ;Herbert T. Buxton (2002)
Pharmaceuticals, 
 Hormones, and
 
 Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A 
 National Reconnaissance, Environmental Science & Technology, 36(6):1202-1211
 :http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/jtextd?esthag/36/6/html/ es011055j.html
<http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/jtextd?esthag/36/6/html/es011055j.html
 http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/jtextd?esthag/36/6/html/es011055j.html
 
 Martin, John H. 2003.  A Comparison of Dairy Cattle Manure 
 Management with and without Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Utilization.
Submitted to: US  EPA AgStar
 Program by Eastern Research Group Inc.
 :http://www.epa.gov/agstar/pdf/nydairy2003.pdf
<http://www.epa.gov/agstar/pdf/nydairy2003.pdf
 http://www.epa.gov/agstar/pdf/nydairy2003.pdf
 
Pain, B.F.; T.H. Misselbrook, and C.R. Clarkson.  (1990). Odour and 
 Ammonia emissions following the spreading of anaerobically digested pig 
 slurry on grassland.  Biol. Wastes 34: 259-267.
 
Union of Concerned Scientists.  August 2, 2000 Letter to US EPA 
 Assistant Administrator Charles Fox “Limit Vital Antibiotics in Factory Farm 
 Effluent”
 
 Signed by Sierra Club and other organizations.
 
 U. S, EPA - April 2004.  INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 
 AND SINKS:1990-2002.
<http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/
 LHOD5MJTM5/$File/
 http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/
 LHOD5MJTM5/$File/
 2003-final-inventory_ES.pdf
<http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/
 LHOD5MJTM5/$File/2
 http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/
 LHOD5MJTM5/$File/2 003-final-inventory_ES.pdf
 
 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,  “Frequently Asked 
 Questions -Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations”
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/nps/ag/faq_cafo.htm
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/nps/ag/faq_cafo.htm#q1
 http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/nps/ag/faq_cafo.htm#q1