Complaint MDA Response Critique of MDA Response

Operator: Ybema

Type: Dairy (200 milker, 200 dry)

Location: Allegan County

Complaints: Date back to at least 1992 per waste water or manure runoff to stream. Emergency discharges in ’97 and ’98.

• Since 1992, MDA and then-MDNR advise producer to make certain changes but never follow through.

After recent discharges, MDEQ notes, as contributing factors, insufficient lagoon capacity, lack of overall management plan and, because lagoons sit within 50 feet of a stream, that wastes may easily vent to the stream via groundwater.

MDA and MDNR did not perform due diligence of checking into lagoon capacity or requesting overall manure management plan, especially because of proximity of lagoons to stream.

Operator: Methner

Type: Dairy (400 cows)

Location: Isabella County

Complaints: 1998 complaint involves odors and potential manure runoff to tributary of Salt River. 1994 complaint involves lagoon overflow into ditch.

Impacts: Major fish kill in Salt River in 1994, one day after MDA had verified lagoon overflow and runoff to ditch.

• MDA was satisfied in ’94 that producer’s plan to reduce lagoon level by applying manure to land would abate complaint.
• After the next day’s fish kill, a MDEQ inspector noted problems that should have been obvious and identified by MDA: The lagoon was too small for the size of herd, storm water runoff from buildings contributed to lagoon overflow, and manure application at that time was dangerous because ground was saturated by rains.

MDA closes ’98 complaint as "not verified" based on notes of no odors or runoff at the time of the visit. Inspectors also note that the farmer still in ’98 does not follow some basic manure management practices.

• Both the ’94 and ’98 responses show MDA focuses solely on specific complaint, not whole problem.
• For example, MDA believes (per conversation with program manager 1/99) the ’94 spill was due to operator error and not related to MDA’s lack of attention to immediate and chronic problems.
• Producer had to pay fine of $22,000 in 1994.

Operator: Huizenga

Type: Swine (number not available)

Location: Ottawa County

Complaints: MDEQ refers 11/97 complaint to MDA per manure ponding on field and running into ditch. MDEQ observed the runoff, took water samples and noted imminent rain would carry it to stream.

Impacts: Results of MDEQ water sampling showed high levels of contaminants.

• MDA visits site and classifies as "not verified" per indications that producer follows some manure management plan and is working with NRCS to develop conservation plan.
• MDEQ memo indicates serious disagreement with MDA closing complaint without any meaningful evidence.

• No apparent follow-up on producer’s plan.

MDA reviews nothing technical (i.e. soil test or manure application rates) to confirm no relationship to well contamination.

Operator: Leach

Type: Swine (number not available)

Location: Cass County

Complaint: 5/1/97 per over-application of manure.

Impacts: Potential impact on nearby residential wells, which have elevated nitrates (>10 mg/liter standard).

• MDA visits site and classifies as "not verified" per indications that producer follows some manure management plan and is working with NRCS to develop conservation plan.
• MDEQ memo indicates serious disagreement with MDA closing complaint without any meaningful evidence.

• No apparent follow-up on producer’s plan.

MDA reviews nothing technical (i.e. soil test or manure application rates) to confirm no relationship to well contamination.

Operator: Baker

Type: Swine (number not available)

Location: St. Joseph County

Complaint: 5/1/97 about possible over-application of manure and potential runoff to waterway.

• MDA visited site 5/29 (21 days after MDEQ’s referral of complaint) and classified as "not verified" because saw/smelled no evidence at that time.
• MDA did not review producer’s records to verify producer was applying at agronomic rates.
• MDEQ memo in file takes issue with MDA procedure: "It may be that the nutrient levels in the field are okay. I just don’t agree that MDA can ‘not verify’ a complaint of over-application without reviewing soil tests."

• MDA assumes nutrient levels in the field are low because producer says so.

According to agronomists, the only way to be certain of proper application is to regularly test both manure and soil and adjust application rate and sites based on the information.

Operator: Raterink

Type: Dairy (65 cows)

Location: Ottawa County

Complaint: MDEQ referred complaint per uncontrolled cattle access to stream, visible erosion and visible algae, and manure apparently running downhill over pasture into stream. MDEQ included notes and photos.

Impacts: Studies show Lake Macatawa, downstream, suffers high levels of contamination from nonpoint source pollution, primarily livestock operations.

• MDA inspector visited 13 days later with letter in advance, as per protocol. Noted no erosion, no "excessive" barnyard runoff and that the producer had a lagoon system in place.
• Inspector saw no need to require improved practices because stream involved did not flow constantly (intermittent).
• MDEQ responds with concerns for water quality because of evidence that stream channel regularly carried runoff and sediment downstream (per definite stream channel and debris mark in drain down the road); continued cattle access to stream; and MDA accepting some manure runoff as okay.

• MDA ignores evidence that runoff occurs whenever rain runs through stream channel into drain.

Operator: Hokse

Type: Dairy (number not available)

Location: Allegan County

Complaint: MDNR referred 3/24/95 complaint about runoff to MDA noting: "Manure was several inches deep in the ditch ... then flowed south 300-400 feet to the stream."

Impacts: MDEQ lab work on watershed water quality indicates ammonia and phosphorus problems.

• MDA visited 4/5/95 and identified changes for manure management system and suggested technical assistance. Farmer submitted a plan and schedule for 1996 implementation.
• In July 1996, more than a year later, MDEQ visited site and producer reported he had done nothing.
• Three months later, MDA visited to review status. Again, nothing done.

It was 1/15/97 before MDA visited farm again and confirms producer had finally installed a lagoon. That may solve immediate problem, but does not address issues of availability of land for application, etc.

• MDA allows nearly two years to pass before changes made to stop the chronic runoff to ditch.
• Puts producer at risk of fines and lawsuits per Michigan’s "zero discharge" rule.
• Although MDEQ is concerned, it is prohibited by interagency agreement from taking any action until after a surface water emergency occurs.