Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
Wisconsin Fly Fishing Forum
 
  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters (Read 16113 times)
Jizzy Pearl
Dragon Fly
******
Offline


I need some fuel to run.

Posts: 1579
Gender: male
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #30 - Oct 15th, 2020 at 8:28am
 
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 9:20am:
So how did the zoom meeting go yesterday?



I couldn't make it but a friend attended. He said the first half hour were procedural readings. There was a lot of opposition to plan and it drew what sounded like a pretty good crowd. 

In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.



I figured as much.  They will get their permit and the fines will probably go unpaid.
Back to top
 

I LOVE COWS!  THEY PACK DOWN THE STREAM BANKS FOR US...THEN WE EAT THEM!!
 
IP Logged
 
John K
Dragon Fly
******
Offline


Purist

Posts: 4450
Gender: male
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #31 - Oct 15th, 2020 at 8:39am
 
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 15th, 2020 at 8:28am:
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 9:20am:
So how did the zoom meeting go yesterday?



I couldn't make it but a friend attended. He said the first half hour were procedural readings. There was a lot of opposition to plan and it drew what sounded like a pretty good crowd. 

In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.



I figured as much.  They will get their permit and the fines will probably go unpaid.


the fines that do get paid are a joke; as such they are a minor cost of doing business
Back to top
 

“all good things. . .come by grace and grace comes by art and art does not come easy.”
 
IP Logged
 
JGF
Dragon Fly
******
Offline


I Love Scaly Rough Fish!

Posts: 1989
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #32 - Oct 15th, 2020 at 10:04am
 
John K wrote on Oct 15th, 2020 at 8:39am:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 15th, 2020 at 8:28am:
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 9:20am:
So how did the zoom meeting go yesterday?



I couldn't make it but a friend attended. He said the first half hour were procedural readings. There was a lot of opposition to plan and it drew what sounded like a pretty good crowd. 

In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.



I figured as much.  They will get their permit and the fines will probably go unpaid.


the fines that do get paid are a joke; as such they are a minor cost of doing business



True but the problem in my mind is that they don't even receive the fines. At least there is a small bit of deterrent there (maybe).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GerardH
WFFP Moderator
*****
Offline


I am haunted by dead fly
anglers

Posts: 7971
The Land of YaBB
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #33 - Oct 16th, 2020 at 10:34am
 
JGF wrote on Oct 15th, 2020 at 10:04am:
John K wrote on Oct 15th, 2020 at 8:39am:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 15th, 2020 at 8:28am:
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 9:20am:
So how did the zoom meeting go yesterday?



I couldn't make it but a friend attended. He said the first half hour were procedural readings. There was a lot of opposition to plan and it drew what sounded like a pretty good crowd. 

In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.



I figured as much.  They will get their permit and the fines will probably go unpaid.


the fines that do get paid are a joke; as such they are a minor cost of doing business



True but the problem in my mind is that they don't even receive the fines. At least there is a small bit of deterrent there (maybe).


Are there any civil recourse options?  i.e., if TU were to sue?
Back to top
 

...because mercifully there are no telephones on trout waters; because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness; because bourbon out of an old tin cup always tastes better out there...

-John Voelker (Robert Traver )
WWW http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=14051797  
IP Logged
 
John K
Dragon Fly
******
Offline


Purist

Posts: 4450
Gender: male
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #34 - Oct 18th, 2020 at 6:14pm
 
GerardH wrote on Oct 16th, 2020 at 10:34am:
JGF wrote on Oct 15th, 2020 at 10:04am:
John K wrote on Oct 15th, 2020 at 8:39am:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 15th, 2020 at 8:28am:
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 9:20am:
So how did the zoom meeting go yesterday?



I couldn't make it but a friend attended. He said the first half hour were procedural readings. There was a lot of opposition to plan and it drew what sounded like a pretty good crowd. 

In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.



I figured as much.  They will get their permit and the fines will probably go unpaid.


the fines that do get paid are a joke; as such they are a minor cost of doing business



True but the problem in my mind is that they don't even receive the fines. At least there is a small bit of deterrent there (maybe).


Are there any civil recourse options?  i.e., if TU were to sue?


TU's past response was to partner with the DNR to issue an offending factory farm special "Green Tier" status...

oh, and to send some unwitting dupe to read a weak kneed "position statement" in a room full of corporate ag interests. Alone.  Angry Angry Angry Angry
Back to top
 

“all good things. . .come by grace and grace comes by art and art does not come easy.”
 
IP Logged
 
Jizzy Pearl
Dragon Fly
******
Offline


I need some fuel to run.

Posts: 1579
Gender: male
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #35 - Oct 19th, 2020 at 8:14am
 
John K wrote on Oct 18th, 2020 at 6:14pm:
TU's past response was to partner with the DNR to issue an offending factory farm special "Green Tier" status...

oh, and to send some unwitting dupe to read a weak kneed "position statement" in a room full of corporate ag interests. Alone.  Angry Angry Angry Angry


Where do I sign up for this group?
Back to top
 

I LOVE COWS!  THEY PACK DOWN THE STREAM BANKS FOR US...THEN WE EAT THEM!!
 
IP Logged
 
Jizzy Pearl
Dragon Fly
******
Offline


I need some fuel to run.

Posts: 1579
Gender: male
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #36 - Oct 19th, 2020 at 4:08pm
 
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.



I decide to contact the DNR about this. This was the reply I received...

Thank you for your engagement in the permit reissuance process for Wild Rose Dairy.  Please understand that our role as DNR employees is to administer and ensure compliance with agricultural standards and prohibitions, as documented in Wisconsin Administrative Code. DNR does not have the authority to deny a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), regardless of location in the state, if the CAFO meets permitting requirements.  In fact, covering CAFOs under a Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit ensures that farms use proper planning, nutrient management, and structure/system construction to protect Wisconsin waters. Through the permitting process, DNR works to ensure the protection of public health and the environment to the best of its abilities within the framework allowable by law.


When a CAFO permittee submits a complete application and has an approved nutrient management plan, DNR is obligated to reissue a WPDES Permit. Because the permit is administered by Wisconsin DNR, it cannot be “denied” by others.  Towns and counties do have the authority to regulate rural land use through zoning and may independently choose to adopt livestock siting ordinances within their municipal boundary.  DNR does not play a role in the adoption of these ordinances. Within the schedule of the proposed DNR permit are items to ensure compliance with permit conditions.  The schedule typically includes monitoring, inspection, reporting, plan and specification submittals, and construction of new facilities.   DNR uses stepped enforcement to ensure that permit compliance is maintained.   

Related to your concerns with spills, DNR has referred the farm to the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) for enforcement related to previous discharge events and failing to submit in a timely manner a complete application for permit reissuance. The farm has since submitted a complete permit application and is currently in substantial compliance and has fulfilled all requirements for permit reissuance. The enforcement action at DOJ is separate from this permitting action. Issuance of a permit to the farm does not resolve or in any way affect the outstanding enforcement action at the Department of Justice.

If you have specific concerns about the permit conditions being proposed, I strongly encourage you to submit those concerns as part of the currently open public comment period.  You may submit comments directly to Eric Struck, CAFO Specialist, either by email or mail (eric.struck@wisconsin.gov or 3911 Fish Hatchery Road, Fitchburg, WI  53711).  The comment period closes at the end of the day this coming Friday, October 23, 2020.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2020 at 4:11pm by Jizzy Pearl »  

I LOVE COWS!  THEY PACK DOWN THE STREAM BANKS FOR US...THEN WE EAT THEM!!
 
IP Logged
 
GerardH
WFFP Moderator
*****
Offline


I am haunted by dead fly
anglers

Posts: 7971
The Land of YaBB
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #37 - Oct 19th, 2020 at 4:48pm
 
Thanks for the follow-up communication on that, Jizzy_P.

In regards to this statement:  "When a CAFO permittee submits a complete application and has an approved nutrient management plan, DNR is obligated to reissue a WPDES Permit. Because the permit is administered by Wisconsin DNR, it cannot be “denied” by others."

Was this always the DNR's policy or was this part of the Walker administration's changes that required the DNR to "must issue" permits as they did for mining?
Back to top
 

...because mercifully there are no telephones on trout waters; because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness; because bourbon out of an old tin cup always tastes better out there...

-John Voelker (Robert Traver )
WWW http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=14051797  
IP Logged
 
Gimp
WFFP Moderator
*****
Offline


Gimpers keep out!

Posts: 2146
Northern, WI
Gender: male
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #38 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 4:39am
 
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 4:08pm:
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.




Related to your concerns with spills, DNR has referred the farm to the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) for enforcement related to previous discharge events and failing to submit in a timely manner a complete application for permit reissuance. The farm has since submitted a complete permit application and is currently in substantial compliance and has fulfilled all requirements for permit reissuance. The enforcement action at DOJ is separate from this permitting action. Issuance of a permit to the farm does not resolve or in any way affect the outstanding enforcement action at the Department of Justice.




OK, admittedly I can sometimes be dumber than a sack of bricks so am I reading this right? They had a spill in the past, didn't pay the penalty in a timely manner but that's OK cause 1: the enforcement puck got slide on down to the DOJ 2:They aren't spilling at the moment so DNR has to reissue the permit 3: whether they pay the penalty or not it doesn't matter and never will cause it's out of the DNR's hands and up to the DOJ to follow up on that part.

So... pollute... get permit pulled by the DNR until the DNR hands the penalty responsibility over to the DOJ, AT WHICH TIME, reapply for permit that must be issued as long as no polluting is going at that moment. Don't worry, polluting can go on later and it would seem the DOJ doesn't really care what the DNR is sending them. Silly little DNR and their funny rules.

I can't stop laughing.
Back to top
 

This is a house of ill fame, and I'm a fallen flower. This life is not only wicked and sinful, it isn't even any fun. Now if I could be married, and come here once or twice a week... - Louise Pendrake
 
IP Logged
 
JGF
Dragon Fly
******
Offline


I Love Scaly Rough Fish!

Posts: 1989
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #39 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:19am
 
Gimp wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 4:39am:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 4:08pm:
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.




Related to your concerns with spills, DNR has referred the farm to the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) for enforcement related to previous discharge events and failing to submit in a timely manner a complete application for permit reissuance. The farm has since submitted a complete permit application and is currently in substantial compliance and has fulfilled all requirements for permit reissuance. The enforcement action at DOJ is separate from this permitting action. Issuance of a permit to the farm does not resolve or in any way affect the outstanding enforcement action at the Department of Justice.




OK, admittedly I can sometimes be dumber than a sack of bricks so am I reading this right? They had a spill in the past, didn't pay the penalty in a timely manner but that's OK cause 1: the enforcement puck got slide on down to the DOJ 2:They aren't spilling at the moment so DNR has to reissue the permit 3: whether they pay the penalty or not it doesn't matter and never will cause it's out of the DNR's hands and up to the DOJ to follow up on that part.

So... pollute... get permit pulled by the DNR until the DNR hands the penalty responsibility over to the DOJ, AT WHICH TIME, reapply for permit that must be issued as long as no polluting is going at that moment. Don't worry, polluting can go on later and it would seem the DOJ doesn't really care what the DNR is sending them. Silly little DNR and their funny rules.

I can't stop laughing.


It's almost like the rules are written for the big farms to win...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GerardH
WFFP Moderator
*****
Offline


I am haunted by dead fly
anglers

Posts: 7971
The Land of YaBB
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #40 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:27am
 
Gimp wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 4:39am:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 4:08pm:
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.




Related to your concerns with spills, DNR has referred the farm to the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) for enforcement related to previous discharge events and failing to submit in a timely manner a complete application for permit reissuance. The farm has since submitted a complete permit application and is currently in substantial compliance and has fulfilled all requirements for permit reissuance. The enforcement action at DOJ is separate from this permitting action. Issuance of a permit to the farm does not resolve or in any way affect the outstanding enforcement action at the Department of Justice.




OK, admittedly I can sometimes be dumber than a sack of bricks so am I reading this right? They had a spill in the past, didn't pay the penalty in a timely manner but that's OK cause 1: the enforcement puck got slide on down to the DOJ 2:They aren't spilling at the moment so DNR has to reissue the permit 3: whether they pay the penalty or not it doesn't matter and never will cause it's out of the DNR's hands and up to the DOJ to follow up on that part.

So... pollute... get permit pulled by the DNR until the DNR hands the penalty responsibility over to the DOJ, AT WHICH TIME, reapply for permit that must be issued as long as no polluting is going at that moment. Don't worry, polluting can go on later and it would seem the DOJ doesn't really care what the DNR is sending them. Silly little DNR and their funny rules.

I can't stop laughing.


You underestimate the ludicrous of this...two spills with significant fish kills....don't look behind the curtain, nothing to see here folks.
Back to top
 

...because mercifully there are no telephones on trout waters; because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness; because bourbon out of an old tin cup always tastes better out there...

-John Voelker (Robert Traver )
WWW http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=14051797  
IP Logged
 
Gimp
WFFP Moderator
*****
Offline


Gimpers keep out!

Posts: 2146
Northern, WI
Gender: male
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #41 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:45am
 
GerardH wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:27am:
Gimp wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 4:39am:
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 4:08pm:
JGF wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 2:32pm:
In the end, it is not going to matter - they'll get the permit. It's the way the system is set up to work.

I just hope that they at least get fined for their spills going back 3 years now.




Related to your concerns with spills, DNR has referred the farm to the State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) for enforcement related to previous discharge events and failing to submit in a timely manner a complete application for permit reissuance. The farm has since submitted a complete permit application and is currently in substantial compliance and has fulfilled all requirements for permit reissuance. The enforcement action at DOJ is separate from this permitting action. Issuance of a permit to the farm does not resolve or in any way affect the outstanding enforcement action at the Department of Justice.




OK, admittedly I can sometimes be dumber than a sack of bricks so am I reading this right? They had a spill in the past, didn't pay the penalty in a timely manner but that's OK cause 1: the enforcement puck got slide on down to the DOJ 2:They aren't spilling at the moment so DNR has to reissue the permit 3: whether they pay the penalty or not it doesn't matter and never will cause it's out of the DNR's hands and up to the DOJ to follow up on that part.

So... pollute... get permit pulled by the DNR until the DNR hands the penalty responsibility over to the DOJ, AT WHICH TIME, reapply for permit that must be issued as long as no polluting is going at that moment. Don't worry, polluting can go on later and it would seem the DOJ doesn't really care what the DNR is sending them. Silly little DNR and their funny rules.

I can't stop laughing.


You underestimate the ludicrous of this...two spills with significant fish kills....don't look behind the curtain, nothing to see here folks.

Nope, not underestimating it at all. My post was thick with sarcasm and the ludicrous nature of this is why I'm still giggling. The world has gone mad. Cheesy
Back to top
 

This is a house of ill fame, and I'm a fallen flower. This life is not only wicked and sinful, it isn't even any fun. Now if I could be married, and come here once or twice a week... - Louise Pendrake
 
IP Logged
 
Jizzy Pearl
Dragon Fly
******
Offline


I need some fuel to run.

Posts: 1579
Gender: male
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #42 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 9:46am
 
All this confirms why I think it doesn't pay to invest any time or energy opposing this with the DNR.

Back to top
 

I LOVE COWS!  THEY PACK DOWN THE STREAM BANKS FOR US...THEN WE EAT THEM!!
 
IP Logged
 
Gimp
WFFP Moderator
*****
Offline


Gimpers keep out!

Posts: 2146
Northern, WI
Gender: male
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #43 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:39am
 
Jizzy Pearl wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 9:46am:
All this confirms why I think it doesn't pay to invest any time or energy opposing this with the DNR.


Back in the day the media would get a hold of this, do some digging and then expose this all... over and over again until everyone, even those not directly involved, understood how utterly ridiculous all of this is.

The problem is nowadays the media is only worried about who's shirt is soaked the most with their own tears on the gram and how much of a meanie Ellen is.
Back to top
 

This is a house of ill fame, and I'm a fallen flower. This life is not only wicked and sinful, it isn't even any fun. Now if I could be married, and come here once or twice a week... - Louise Pendrake
 
IP Logged
 
GerardH
WFFP Moderator
*****
Offline


I am haunted by dead fly
anglers

Posts: 7971
The Land of YaBB
Re: CAFO Expansion for perrenial polluters
Reply #44 - Oct 20th, 2020 at 2:00pm
 
Gimp wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:39am:
The problem is nowadays the media is only worried about who's shirt is soaked the most with their own tears on the gram and how much of a meanie Ellen is.


There are other channels to watch besides E!
Back to top
 

...because mercifully there are no telephones on trout waters; because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness; because bourbon out of an old tin cup always tastes better out there...

-John Voelker (Robert Traver )
WWW http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=14051797  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print