The Vernon County Board, last Thursday, decided against bringing a resolution regarding an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) seeking a permit to operate in Vernon County back on its floor for consideration.

On an 18-9 vote, the board decided against considering a resolution that would have allowed the board of health or the land and water conservation committee to request an environmental impact statement if the county received a WPDES permit from an entity to run a CAFO in the county. It’s highly unlikely the board will have the exact same resolution before it again.

The decision came after a lengthy discussion that included about an hour of input from Thomas A. Lovejoy, the Department of Natural Resources Environmental Analysis and Enforcement Supervisor out of Eau Claire, and Robert Rohland, the DNR’s Environmental Specialist for Watershed Management out of Black River Falls.

Lovejoy said the DNR has already received several hundred postcards and letters requesting that an EIS be conducted on any CAFO seeking to operate in Vernon County. He said it was "premature" to seek an EIS when the department didn’t yet have an application.

Lovejoy said the DNR was aware that Petry Trust has been looking into developing a CAFO in Vernon County. He said the protocol that the state would follow once it received a permit would be to first consider the permit and do an environmental assessment. Then through the environmental assessment process an EIS could be requested. It then would be up to the DNR to consider if an EIS was required.

At this point, Lovejoy said, because of the amount of letters the DNR has received requesting an EIS, a request from the county to seek an EIS would not really matter. While Lovejoy at first said it wouldn’t make any difference, he backed off that statement later in the meeting and said it would be considered along with the other requests for an EIS, but that the DNR already had a lot of them.

Lovejoy said the matter basically came down to the fact that the DNR is going to follow its procedures for permitting when it comes to a CAFO. He said an assessment of and EIS would not stop a CAFO. In fact, Lovejoy said that at the Rosendale Dairy in Fond du Lac County, the only CAFO the DNR has required to do an EIS, the permit was granted, even though the studies done beforehand pointed toward an element of environmental risk existing.

"If standards are met, the permit gets issued," Lovejoy said.

Many county board members discussed the matter seeking pros and cons of requesting an EIS. While an EIS requires a permit applicant to submit more information, the cost of the EIS done at Rosendale, according to information given to the board, was $390,000. It seems like a lot of money, but that was only .65 percent of the $60 million total cost of the project. Also, Lovejoy said the DNR couldn’t confirm Rosendale spent $390,000 on the EIS.

While the board asked questions of Lovejoy and Rohland, Supervisor Geoff Banta at one point said, "I don’t know what we’re so afraid of," noting that Lovejoy said that a letter requesting an EIS from the county would matter little.

"We’ve got constituents who want us to act on this," Banta said. "Let’s get this back on the floor."

The county has been presented with two petitions containing about 2,000 signatures seeking that the Petry Trust CAFO plan be stopped.

The Alliance Concerned with Environmental Safety (ACES) has organized to oppose the CAFO.

ACES members Leah Call said she was hoping the county would approve the resolution.

"We are disappointed that the county board has decided to keep the issue of the EIS request tabled, but we feel encouraged that the board members understand the importance of this issue, and when the permit application is made we will make the request at that time," Call said.

The county already has two smaller operating CAFOs, Wild Rose Dairy, near La Farge and Hills Prairie, near Hillsboro. The state currently has 185 operating CAFOs and has fielded few complaints regarding any of the state’s CAFO operations.

To date the DNR has only completed one EIS report, at Rosendale Farms near Fond du Lac, since the first CAFO was developed in the state in the 1980s. The Rosendale project involves an 11,000-animal-unit development. Its permit was granted even though environmental concerns were noted in the EIS report, Lovejoy said.

"There’s a lot of misconception out there in regards to EA (Environmental Assessment) and EIS reports," Lovejoy said. "These reports are designed to inform, not prevent CAFO developments. If an applicant meets the standards required by current state statutes, which the DNR is governed by, an application will be approved."

Lovejoy said the sole criteria of completing an EIS report is to ensure that a proposed CAFO does not inhibit the quality of life for the human environment, not to prevent the development of corporate farms, which is a county zoning decision, not a DNR issue.

Lovejoy suggested amending changes to the resolution at the county level requesting an EA first and an EIS only if it is warranted. He noted that the DNR has already received hundreds of postcards and letters from residents in Vernon County in regards to the proposed Petry Trust CAFO, but said that they would not be a determining factor in any decision by the DNR if they were to order an EIS report.

"An EIS is not a decision document it’s an information document. Decisions are based on set rules and changes are at the legislative level," Lovejoy said.

Rohland said once a CAFO application is applied it takes approximately one year for a permit to reach the public hearing stage before approval is obtained from the DNR.

Rohland said that DNR fines for violations at a CAFO can be as much as $10,000 a day and that the rules imposed on CAFOs are far stricter than those on smaller farms. He said a CAFO should be inspected by state officials twice a year. However, Rohland said that "problems" have led to CAFOs being inspected by state personnel just once in a four-year period.

"It’s an area we’re trying to approve on, but everyone has had to make concessions in tough economic times," Rohland said. "The DNR isn’t immune to state cutbacks."

After the meeting, Rohland made a strong pitch for people who attend legislative sessions regarding making changes to state statutes to be prepared and provide informative information.

When it comes to opposing the permit for a CAFO, Rohland said the opposition needs to have a strong case backed in science.

"You need to build your case first and state your reasons for change," Rohland said. "Don’t just come to Madison and tell us you don’t like something, tell us why and be able to back up your statements. Changes don’t happen overnight, but the more information people provide as to why change must occur the quicker those changes might happen."

"We don’t make the laws, we administer them," Lovejoy said. "It’s not a perfect world, but keeping an open dialogue is as important as being educated on the subject you’re trying to change."

Westby farmer, Mike Fremstad, was pleased to hear direct information from the DNR at the county board meeting.

"Vernon County has become a melting pot of rumors over the past few months and as much as we need to sustain open dialogue, we need to do so with correct information," Fremstad said. "A lack of education is a big part of the problem that keeps fueling this issue."

The vote to bring back the resolution needed to be passed by a two-thirds margin. It failed 18-9. Those voting against were supervisors Tom Spenner, Will Beitlich, Jo Ann Nickelatti, James Servais, John McClelland Jr., Maynard Cox, Herbert Cornell, A. Richard Brose, Robert Johnson, Sherman Erlandson, Raymond Moser, Kevin Larson, Todd Overbo, Jerry Cade, Frank Easterday, Ole Yttri, Jack Robinson and Hynek. Those voting in favor were Brian Richardson, Leo Verbsky, Kevin Gobel, Phil Hooker, Dennis Brault, David Banner, Karen Dahl, Banta, and Frank McCoy.

This may not be the last time the county board deals with a resolution regarding an EIS. Another resolution requesting that the board ask the DNR to require an EIS for a prospective CAFO could be brought forward when a WPDES application is made.

When contacted after the meeting, Marc Bourgault, a representative of Petry Trust, had no comment at the present time on the county board’s action.