 Printer Friendly version  Plain text version |
Vreba-Hoff Dairy and DEQ: pitchforks at 20 paces
Vreba-Hoff Dairy is accused of 700 additional violations of its NPDES.
A clean, empty stable looks nice and stays clean, but as Biblical wisdom teaches, it produces no income.
The farmer has a choice.
Michigan's governmental agency in charge of the environment has been given a single-minded mission, and its hands firmly grip the pitchfork of first priority - a clean stable. Watchdog groups who've made environmental Nirvana their business apparently prefer the clean stable over what produces income.
Conflict and confusion over the ultimate goal may be where observers of agriculture - both its detractors and supporters - find themselves when they open the stable door to Vreba-Hoff Dairy, with one farm each in Lenawee and Hillsdale counties. As the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) tries to make the farm grab a fork and pitch until they find the box stall floor, the farm has tried to convince state's environmental regulators that if it takes out a load or two, they should be content. The rest will be pitched out in good time. But there are other people - anti-CAFO activists, mostly - who would rather keep animals out of the barn altogether.
It's too late for that.
But is it possible to find even one fork with a capable box-stall cleaner behind it when it comes to Vreba-Hoff? Many environmentalists say no. The farm's management says yes and points to what it says is a record of zero discharges for the last three years, although that claim is hotly disputed, especially by a local watchdog group and the DEQ.
Trying to maintain both the pristine stable and adequate income has been a long, difficult process for Vreba-Hoff and the DEQ, like cleaning a box stall when there's an ornery bull in it. Peeling back truth from innuendo at this point is arduous. Both the farm and the DEQ seem to be pitching warily, with one eye on the bull.
Nine years of pollution?
The farm's first official forkful of legal trouble came in December, 2004, when it agreed to an out-of-court settlement with DEQ after accusations of manure spills, silage leachate spills and pollution of wetlands going back to August of 2001. But the settlement was designed to pitch out layers of 25 alleged pollutant discharges dating from November 2002 through March 2004.
As part of that settlement, Vreba-Hoff agreed to pay $75,000 in civil penalties and enforcement costs, and to build a $1 million wastewater treatment system, designed to press water from manure, compost the solids and leave clean water for irrigation. The DEQ was so impressed with the system that it held a press conference at the farm in 2006, when it touted the system as "a real example of the technology that is available today to make large farms more protective of our state's vast water resources." Then-DEQ Deputy Director Skip Pruss even called the system an "environmentally friendly operation."
But the system didn't work.
"We tried to run a perfect ship, but we had human error," said Vreba-Hoff Dairy spokesperson Cecilia Conway.
As early as October, 2006, DEQ inspections showed that the system was not in operation when it should have been, and by November, the DEQ charged the farm with "numerous violations" including discharges to nearby drains.
Before the end of the first quarter of 2007, the DEQ charged Vreba-Hoff with at least 13 violations, including four unlawful discharges to local drains and ditches. The DEQ asked the Michigan Attorney General to get involved. In June, 2007, it ordered Vreba-Hoff to pay $180,000 in fines and to cut its then-6,000-cow operation by 50 cows. Environmentalists called it a slap on the wrist.
Failed systems
That same month, a modification of the 2004 consent order that included the initial civil fine was issued, and Vreba-Hoff contracted to add a new treatment system to the waste-water treatment system that apparently hadn't worked from the beginning. It was rumored to have cost at least another $1 million, although Conway would not reveal the true cost.
That system, brand-named the EarthMentor, brought the farm closer to treating its animal manure the way municipal wastewater treatment plants operate, with a series of settling ponds.
"That system is running well now," Conway said last summer (2008). "Manure goes from parts of that first system into the EarthMentor, which separates the manure and the sand. The clean sand can be reused for bedding, and the manure solids are composted. The effluent is treated in an anaerobic process to reduce ammonia, and the clean water can be used for irrigation."
That's true, but how far the farm can go with that water depends on the definition of clean.
As part of its allegation of continuing non-compliance with its court-negotiated consent agreement and its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the DEQ says irrigation water taken from an incomplete system has occurred and continues. In other words, the DEQ doubts that the water Vreba-Hoff applies to its crops is as clean as it's supposed to be.
To be clear, the court order contains no restrictions on Vreba-Hoff's use of clean irrigation water. But the irrigation water being used, said Bob McCann, spokesman for the DEQ, is being unlawfully taken from a settling pond that is part of the new system, but not the last pond, where it's supposed to originate.
"It's always been assumed that the system takes 18 months to work properly, but Vreba-Hoff continues to want to start using the water after six months," McCann said. "That's not enough time to allow the system to work." McCann also noted that removing water before the final phase compromises the entire system.
McCann said the EarthMentor system was designed to handle and hold the manure from approximately 5,000 cows for 18 months before pulling clean water from the end holding pond. After the 18 months, the farm is free to use the irrigation water - as long as it meets purity standards that the farm proposed and agreed to in court negotiations. But at this point, the water doesn't meet those standards, the DEQ alleges. Vreba-Hoff admitted that it doesn't.
"We don't know where in the EarthMentor system they're pulling from," McCann said. "It should be from the last pit, but in May, they sent us a letter that said that they aren't meeting those standards, but were going to irrigate anyway. We consider that a violation, and we consider that pollution, because by putting some level (of contaminated water) on the ground, that will affect the groundwater in the area. That's a continuing problem with them. If they needed more storage to do things right, we certainly would talk to them about it. But their practice is just to go ahead and do things, and when they're almost done, we find out about it."
After the letter from Vreba-Hoff to the DEQ on May 9 of 2009, which acknowledged that the water did not meet the farm's NPDES standards, the Michigan Attorney General demanded "immediate compliance with all terms and conditions of the interim order and NPDES permit."
But Conway said the water being used for irrigation "is very low-nutrient water, placed onto growing crops at a very minute amount, making sure no nutrients are moving off the growing crops." She said she's driven by the irrigated fields many times, and noted that "it has a slight color, but when the irrigation is running, you can't tell. It has no odor."
Conway also said the farm has hired one person whose only job is to operate the system, as directed by a 2007 court order; and has an entire team "just for environmental management," which is working hard with the DEQ to finally put a little elbow grease into the pitchfork's action. That person, Jamie Van Pelt, with the title Environmental Compliance Coordinator sent the letter on May 9 to the DEQ.
Despite the admission that standards were not met, Conway said Van Pelt and the team takes care of business.
"We probably should have had that environmental team dedicated all along, but now that we do, I think we have a better working relationship with the DEQ inspector," Conway said. "We needed to have a group dedicated to manure management that didn't have to milk cows. That group is working more cooperatively with the DEQ, and we have a more secure feeling about what we're doing environmentally."
Fines not paid
If Vreba-Hoff is doing better environmentally - something the local concerned citizens and Michigan Sierra Club would dispute - the box stall wasn't exactly sanitized by the time Vreba-Hoff was ordered - and paid - a contempt-of-court fine in mid-May for a reported $223,500.
"That was on top of fines they haven't paid," McCann said. Those other fines, according to Vreba-Hoff attorney Jack Van Kley, total $330,000, and will be paid, but not all at once.
The consent order outlining payments, entered into in June, 2007, after more than six months of negotiations, depends on Vreba-Hoff's wastewater treatment system coming up to speed.
In September of 2008, wastewater containing fecal-matter-eating bacteria from a different farm's holding pond was put into both Vreba-Hoff's EarthMentor systems with the understanding that those bacteria were expected to multiply enough to get the total volatile solids in the last holding cell down to 1500 parts per million.
On top of that requirement is the brand new barn standing vacant on Vreba-Hoff's farm waiting for the bacteria to procreate enough new, hungry feces-eating bacteria to allow more cows to defecate into the system.
And so the consent agreement dictates that, when the bacteria become populous enough, Vreba-Hoff can legally house cows in the new barn.
When that happens, initially Vreba-Hoff will be required to pay the $180,000 fine assessed in June, 2007, plus $150 per cow up to 1,000 cows in the new barn, for a total fine of $330,000.
After that, Van Kley said, Vreba-Hoff will have a clean slate, and all former environmental violations will be cleared. The box stall is cleaned and bedded and income production can begin again.
If more environmental problems surface, of course, (they have. Read the sidebar story on page 14) all the pitched legal battles will sully the farm's reputation yet again, but in the eyes of anti-CAFO activists, invoking the name Vreba-Hoff already is tantamount to channeling Hitler's ghost.
For example, in the fight over the proposed Bustdorf dairy in St. Joseph County, a citizen's group continually pointed out that it was to be financed by Vreba-Hoff Development Co. But the company acts only as a financier, Conway said.
"We indicated over and over that we were the developer only," she said. "The opposition to Mr. Bustdorf didn't acknowledge that most of the work on the farm's design, from professional engineering firms to geologists, were mostly from Michigan firms. And there will be a lot of Michigan employees involved, from construction to operation. But still, one of the main fighting points the citizen's group had was that we are Vreba-Hoff. And that can be difficult to overcome."
Overcoming a box stall of suspicion and a history of pollution also is frustrating for the DEQ, McCann said.
Continuing frustration
"We've had a lot of problems with Vreba-Hoff living up to the agreements they made with us," McCann said. "It's frustrating for the public and us when that continues to happen. First we'd have assurances that this time things would be different, and then they weren't. That's what's singled them out from other CAFOs. The others are doing what they can to live up to their obligations to keep from causing impacts to the environment. Not living up to those obligations puts Vreba-Hoff in a unique position."
As of last summer, before the new allegations, McCann said, Vreba-Hoff was legal, operating under the law, But, he added, "They know they're being watched." And, he said, violations on top of the irrigation problem continue.
"The last discharge to surface water was a pit overflow to the Medina Drain in September 2007," McCann said. "They've also unlawfully discharged on the ground, and that's ongoing."
Van Kley said those are merely alleged violations of the permit and the consent order.
Perhaps, conceded McCann, Vreba-Hoff carries a higher profile than other CAFOs in Michigan, but it's only because the DEQ has had more than its fair share of disagreements with the farm, and the farm has had more than its share of problems. But, he said, they are treated no differently than any other CAFO, many of which have proven they can operate without polluting.
"The two ideas - having a CAFO and not polluting - are not incompatible," he said. "All they have to agree to do is what they say they're going to do."
That becomes more difficult, Conway said, when milk prices plummet.
"The entire dairy industry is in tight times right now," she said. "Everybody has to be more efficient with their dollars, and while it's hard on everybody, we have to do things correctly. There's a lot of investment tied up here, and we can't afford to make mistakes. We may get no economic return from having an environmental team, but it's necessary at this point in time. It's just a cost of doing business."
Ironically, Vreba-Hoff and the environmental community that watches it are in the same box stall, wielding pitchforks.
"I had the recent opportunity to meet with Anne Woiwode (director of Michigan's chapter of the Sierra Club), and we both have the same goals," she said. "No one wants to pollute, so why aren't we working together? Her group wants to spend a lot of money on moratoriums and stop all growth, and wants us all to go back to the smaller farms. But that won't feed the population. We all have to look at what's realistic."
Realistically, it's clear that the box stall has to contain animals, and it's also clear that someone has to get in there - regularly - with a pitchfork. The DEQ would prefer it's Vreba-Hoff on the other end of the fork. Vreba-Hoff just wants a clean box stall.
When the two come up with a system that produces income and keeps the stable clean, the choices for each will be simple.
MORE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Of all the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Michigan, one continues to get most of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) attention.
Vreba-Hoff Dairy is one of the largest dairy CAFOs in Michigan, and it has the worst environmental record. The DEQ has spent far more hours and dedicated far more people to the farm for enforcement of environmental law than any other dairy in the state, and it appears that will continue.
In mid-December, the DEQ filed a fourth lawsuit against Vreba-Hoff, alleging approximately 700 new violations of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
"Once again we find ourselves having to ask the court to enforce the numerous agreements that Vreba-Hoff has failed to live up to, and enough is enough," said DEQ Director Steve Chester. "Most CAFOs in Michigan work hard to be environmentally responsible members of their communities..."
If the farm continues to violate the terms of its court-ordered agreements, and if it is polluting local waters, the question from local farmers and environmentalists continues to be 'why can't the state shut them down?'
The quick answer, said Bob McCann, spokesman for the DEQ, is that it doesn't have that authority. The court does.
"We're getting more and more frustrated," McCann said. "Each time, the court sends us and Vreba-Hoff to mediation, and that gets us another agreement Vreba-Hoff won't live up to. But maybe we're getting close to that point this time. I don't see how we can have further mediation."
A court date between the two parties is pending.
The larger story that appears on these pages is a factual account of the history of the farm and its environmental trouble. It is not an attempt to pass judgment on the farm or the DEQ, but to give members of the farming community enough unbiased information to form its own opinion about Vreba-Hoff and its effect on the image of the Michigan dairy industry.
| Printer Friendly version Plain text version |
