Did you know that the Grand Lake St. Marys watershed has the highest concentration of animals in Ohio? But where are they? Drive through the watershed and see if you can find them.
If you are outraged by these photos, join GOGLSM.
*******
The Grand Lake St. Marys watershed barely uptakes nutrients (manure) spread on the fields, therefore, it goes into GLSM.
Livestock Environmental Permitting
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Guardians have recently added this page to help the GLSM community know when additional livestock permitting (factory farms) is being reviewed for the area. To protest additional livestock permitting in the GLSM watershed, contact the Ohio Department of Agriculture.
Contacting the Ohio Department of Agriculture
Office of Communication
8995 East Main Street
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399
Phone: (614) 728-6201
Fax: (614 ) 728-6310
Contacting the Ohio Department of Agriculture
Office of Communication
8995 East Main Street
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399
Phone: (614) 728-6201
Fax: (614 ) 728-6310
If you recognize a permit in your area for additional livestock or chickens, please notify the Dept. of Agriculture (contact information above) to ask for a public hearing. Twenty signed letters requesting a public hearing are required. Notify Guardians if you are asking for a hearing and when you receive notifications of meetings, copy us at trout@columbus.rr.com. We have to stop the influx of livestock coming into the watershed.
Industrial Livestock Production and Water Quality: How 335 million tons of mismanaged manure
By Chris Hunt | 10.14.2010 |
When prompted to consider water pollution, most people envision classic point sources: the corroded factory pipe pouring green sludge into a creek, the municipal waste treatment plant pumping stormwater runoff into an estuary, the oil behemoth’s offshore well spewing millions of barrels of crude. But when I don my Water Pollution Contemplation Cap, I inevitably envision industrial livestock facilities.
Also known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or factory farms, these facilities raise thousands (or in some cases, hundreds of thousands) of animals in confined conditions without access to pasture. Unfortunately, factory farms currently produce the vast majority of meat, eggs and dairy in the US. Unbeknown to most of us who don’t have the misfortune of living nearby, they're also big-time polluters.
The fundamental cause of all this pollution is simply that industrial livestock operations confine too many animals in one place. As a result, they produce a tremendous amount of waste – and by waste, I don’t mean a little bit of old bedding hay and some leftover feed, I mean urine and feces – hundreds of thousands of tons of urine and feces. Indeed, industrial livestock operations often produce as much excrement as entire human cities. But while municipalities process human waste at sewage treatment plants, factory farms typically embrace a decidedly lower-tech waste management strategy: they just shove all the manure into big open pits called manure lagoons.
As anyone who’s graced the confines of a well-used Porta-Potty on a hot summer day can surely attest, the uncovered-pile-of-excrement waste management technique gets pretty gross pretty fast. And when the pile of excrement fills a hole that’s several acres large, the situation becomes downright dangerous. Of course, this setup emits a host of hazardous air pollutants known to sicken workers and anyone living in nearby communities. And oh yeah, factory farms generate greenhouse gases like they're trying to outpace the transportation sector. But we'll save discussion of all things ambient for another Blog Action Day.
What could possibly go wrong when a few million gallons of manure are stored in an uncovered cesspool?Turns out that manure lagoons are prone to leaks, which allow pollutants to seep into groundwater. They can also overflow during storms or when there’s a mechanical problem with a pump or pipe. And every so often, a sidewall will collapse. In all cases, manure ends up being washed into surface waters, or seeping into groundwater.
But even when manure lagoons function properly, water pollution is commonplace. Since livestock continually produce waste, lagoons need to be periodically emptied. Factory farms handle this situation by sucking out the sludge and applying it to surrounding land. Unfortunately, since there’s so much waste, industrial producers often over-apply it, ultimately causing manure to be washed into ground and surface waters.
But what’s so bad about putting a little poop in the water?In two words, the pollutants. Here're the big ones:
Nutrients – primarily nitrogen and phosphorous; these pollutants induce eutrophication. Think back to high school biology: excess nutrients cause algal growth, which blocks light, killing underwater plants; then the algae die and decompose, which reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, ultimately killing aquatic life and creating dead zones (see Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay or any waterway next to a CAFO). Nutrient pollution can also cause growth of the highly toxic alga, Pfiesteria piscicida (think bleeding sores on fish and neurological damage to humans).
Pathogens – manure is lousy with these pesky microorganisms (a few big players: Campylobacter Cryptosporidium, E. coli and Salmonella). When livestock feces gets in our food, people can get sick. Same thing happens when livestock feces gets in our water. But unlike food, water can’t be recalled. And in addition to consuming it, people use water for things like bathing, swimming and fishing.
Antibiotics – factory farms administer this stuff with reckless abandon in order to compensate for the squalid conditions in which they raise livestock. Thing is, 25 to 75 percent of antibiotics pass into animal manure unchanged – so if you leave a few million gallons of CAFO waste sitting around in an open pit, you create a giant Petri dish perfectly suited to induce the proliferation of anitibiotic-resistant bacteria. When the manure enters water, these bacteria go with it.
Heavy Metals – Nope, not the kind peddled by these guys. The kind that poisons people. Factory farms add traces of heavy metals to livestock feed in order to boost growth rates, but some of it passes into the manure – and when waste from millions of animals is collected in one place, the metals eventually accumulate, contaminate soil and can leach into groundwater. Think I'm making this up? Note the rate of arsenic contamination in the Delmarva Peninsula, where poultry factories raise more than half a billion broilers per year.
Other Nasty Stuff – Hormones (they're administered to livestock, pass into manure, end up in water and impair the reproductive systems of fish and other aquatic species). Ammonia (toxic to fish and can be converted to nitrates, which can contaminate drinking water and sicken humans). Organic matter (bedding material, feed, hair, feathers, dust, etc. – this decomposes in water, further reducing oxygen levels and killing aquatic life).
Stealth PollutersIn stark contrast to the clean, bucolic imagery printed on milk cartons and meat packages, industrial livestock operations have always been filthy polluters – and as a result of Big Ag’s tremendous political clout and a general lack of public awareness about their impacts, they've always gotten away with it. Regulation of industrial livestock facilities has never been sufficiently stringent – and enforcement of existing rules is notoriously lax.
But as much as I love to end posts with a hearty dose of doom and gloom, in this case, I'll bust out the optimism and mention Illinois. At the end of September, the Obama administration demanded that the IL EPA start enforcing the environmental regulations with which factory farms are supposed to comply, or else relinquish regulatory oversight to the US EPA. Although this may not sound particularly remarkable (environmental regulations are supposed to be enforced, right?), it’s actually an unprecedented step toward cracking down on these chronic polluters. We're hoping the trend will continue. In the meantime, don’t go swimming near any CAFOs.
© 2010 GRACE Communications Foundation
By Chris Hunt | 10.14.2010 |
When prompted to consider water pollution, most people envision classic point sources: the corroded factory pipe pouring green sludge into a creek, the municipal waste treatment plant pumping stormwater runoff into an estuary, the oil behemoth’s offshore well spewing millions of barrels of crude. But when I don my Water Pollution Contemplation Cap, I inevitably envision industrial livestock facilities.
Also known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or factory farms, these facilities raise thousands (or in some cases, hundreds of thousands) of animals in confined conditions without access to pasture. Unfortunately, factory farms currently produce the vast majority of meat, eggs and dairy in the US. Unbeknown to most of us who don’t have the misfortune of living nearby, they're also big-time polluters.
The fundamental cause of all this pollution is simply that industrial livestock operations confine too many animals in one place. As a result, they produce a tremendous amount of waste – and by waste, I don’t mean a little bit of old bedding hay and some leftover feed, I mean urine and feces – hundreds of thousands of tons of urine and feces. Indeed, industrial livestock operations often produce as much excrement as entire human cities. But while municipalities process human waste at sewage treatment plants, factory farms typically embrace a decidedly lower-tech waste management strategy: they just shove all the manure into big open pits called manure lagoons.
As anyone who’s graced the confines of a well-used Porta-Potty on a hot summer day can surely attest, the uncovered-pile-of-excrement waste management technique gets pretty gross pretty fast. And when the pile of excrement fills a hole that’s several acres large, the situation becomes downright dangerous. Of course, this setup emits a host of hazardous air pollutants known to sicken workers and anyone living in nearby communities. And oh yeah, factory farms generate greenhouse gases like they're trying to outpace the transportation sector. But we'll save discussion of all things ambient for another Blog Action Day.
What could possibly go wrong when a few million gallons of manure are stored in an uncovered cesspool?Turns out that manure lagoons are prone to leaks, which allow pollutants to seep into groundwater. They can also overflow during storms or when there’s a mechanical problem with a pump or pipe. And every so often, a sidewall will collapse. In all cases, manure ends up being washed into surface waters, or seeping into groundwater.
But even when manure lagoons function properly, water pollution is commonplace. Since livestock continually produce waste, lagoons need to be periodically emptied. Factory farms handle this situation by sucking out the sludge and applying it to surrounding land. Unfortunately, since there’s so much waste, industrial producers often over-apply it, ultimately causing manure to be washed into ground and surface waters.
But what’s so bad about putting a little poop in the water?In two words, the pollutants. Here're the big ones:
Nutrients – primarily nitrogen and phosphorous; these pollutants induce eutrophication. Think back to high school biology: excess nutrients cause algal growth, which blocks light, killing underwater plants; then the algae die and decompose, which reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, ultimately killing aquatic life and creating dead zones (see Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay or any waterway next to a CAFO). Nutrient pollution can also cause growth of the highly toxic alga, Pfiesteria piscicida (think bleeding sores on fish and neurological damage to humans).
Pathogens – manure is lousy with these pesky microorganisms (a few big players: Campylobacter Cryptosporidium, E. coli and Salmonella). When livestock feces gets in our food, people can get sick. Same thing happens when livestock feces gets in our water. But unlike food, water can’t be recalled. And in addition to consuming it, people use water for things like bathing, swimming and fishing.
Antibiotics – factory farms administer this stuff with reckless abandon in order to compensate for the squalid conditions in which they raise livestock. Thing is, 25 to 75 percent of antibiotics pass into animal manure unchanged – so if you leave a few million gallons of CAFO waste sitting around in an open pit, you create a giant Petri dish perfectly suited to induce the proliferation of anitibiotic-resistant bacteria. When the manure enters water, these bacteria go with it.
Heavy Metals – Nope, not the kind peddled by these guys. The kind that poisons people. Factory farms add traces of heavy metals to livestock feed in order to boost growth rates, but some of it passes into the manure – and when waste from millions of animals is collected in one place, the metals eventually accumulate, contaminate soil and can leach into groundwater. Think I'm making this up? Note the rate of arsenic contamination in the Delmarva Peninsula, where poultry factories raise more than half a billion broilers per year.
Other Nasty Stuff – Hormones (they're administered to livestock, pass into manure, end up in water and impair the reproductive systems of fish and other aquatic species). Ammonia (toxic to fish and can be converted to nitrates, which can contaminate drinking water and sicken humans). Organic matter (bedding material, feed, hair, feathers, dust, etc. – this decomposes in water, further reducing oxygen levels and killing aquatic life).
Stealth PollutersIn stark contrast to the clean, bucolic imagery printed on milk cartons and meat packages, industrial livestock operations have always been filthy polluters – and as a result of Big Ag’s tremendous political clout and a general lack of public awareness about their impacts, they've always gotten away with it. Regulation of industrial livestock facilities has never been sufficiently stringent – and enforcement of existing rules is notoriously lax.
But as much as I love to end posts with a hearty dose of doom and gloom, in this case, I'll bust out the optimism and mention Illinois. At the end of September, the Obama administration demanded that the IL EPA start enforcing the environmental regulations with which factory farms are supposed to comply, or else relinquish regulatory oversight to the US EPA. Although this may not sound particularly remarkable (environmental regulations are supposed to be enforced, right?), it’s actually an unprecedented step toward cracking down on these chronic polluters. We're hoping the trend will continue. In the meantime, don’t go swimming near any CAFOs.
© 2010 GRACE Communications Foundation
Guardians challenge the PTI & PTO Permits
June 20, 2016
Kate Anderson, President
Guardians of Grand Lake St. Marys
247 E. Sycamore St.
Columbus, OH 43206
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Division of Livestock Environmental Permitting (DLEP)
8995 East Main St.
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
To Whom It May Concern:
The Guardians of Grand Lake St. Marys (GOGLSM) is strongly opposed to the draft Permit to Install (PTI) and the draft Permit to Operate (PTO) that has been issued to Pine Valley Ranch, LLC, 8704 St. Rt. 274, New Bremen, OH, Auglaize County, Jennings Township in the Auglaize and St. Marys Watershed.
GOGLSM recommends that there be a moratorium on any additional livestock coming into in polluted watersheds from farm run-off by family farms, AFOs, CAFOs or MCAFFs until the pollution problem is permanently resolved in Grand Lake St. Marys (GLSM), Lake Erie and other Ohio bodies of water.
We also ask that all farms with livestock be permitted regardless of size. The size of a farm should not matter when it comes to permitting. We believe this is important since many of Ohio’s waterways are polluted by such..
GOGLSM is opposed to the permits for Pine Valley Ranch, LLC based for the following concerns.
Health
Attached is a copy of a letter by John Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health regarding the public health concerns with a facility of 1.7 million-layer capacity poultry operation. The health concerns stated in the letter, include the following:
“1. Infections resulting from the potential transmission of pathogens (disease-causing organisms, including bacteria that can infect people) from poultry operations to nearby residents, for example, via flies or contaminated air or water;
2. Health effects, including asthma, bronchitis and allergic reactions with exposure to air pollution from poultry operations; and
3. Health effects (e.g. thyroid problems, methemoglobinemia, neurological impairments (see attached 2011 lawsuit Cooper Farms facility causing permanent brain damage), liver damage) associated with exposures to nitrates, drug residues and other hazards that may be present in ground/or surface waters contaminated by manure from poultry operations.”
GOGLSM Recommendations
There should be a fly trapping program to establish a baseline for the average number of flies present prior to the start-up of the MCAFF to establish if a fly nuisance problem exists in the area prior and after the construction and management of the MCAFF. Neighboring properties within a ten-mile radius should be thoroughly compensated for any nuisance created by flies.
Decline in Real Property Values
The potential for real property valuation loss is possible. A recent study by John A. Kilpatrick, "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values", The Appraisal Journal, July, 2001, p. 306. Describes the impacts of the nearby real estate stemming from the development of enterprises such as the proposed MCAFF PTI and PTO by Pine Valley Ranch, LLC.
Below is the summary of their findings.
Demonstrated Economic Losses—The Evidence
The magnitude of the economic loss suffered by the neighbors of a CAFO can be significant. The costs shifted to the residents of the region by a CAFO adversely affect the value of neighboring properties. This, in turn, lowers the taxable value of these properties and shifts costs to all other residents of the region. Palmquist et al., in a 1995 study in North Carolina, found that neighboring property values were affected by large hog operations based on two factors: the existing hog density in the area and the distance from the facility. The maximum predicted decrease in real estate value of 7.1 percent occurred for houses within one-half mile of a new facility in a low hog farm density area. 1997 and 1998 updates of this study found that home values decreased by $.43 for every additional hog in a five-mile radius of the house. For example, there was a decrease of 4.75% (about $3000) of the value of residential property within
1/2 mile of a 2,400 head finishing operation where the mean housing price was $60,800.8
A 1996 study by Padgett and Johnson found much larger decreases in home value than those forecast by Palmquist. In Iowa, hog CAFOs decreased the value of homes in a half-mileradius of the facilities by 40%, within 1 mile by 30%, 1.5 miles by 20% and 2 miles by 10%.
In addition, an Iowa study found that while some agricultural land values increased due to an increased demand for “spreadable acreage,” total assessed property value, including residential, fell in proximity to hog operations.
An eighteen months study of 75 rural land transactions near Premium Standard's hog operations in Putnam County, Missouri conducted by the departments of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri found an average $58 per acre loss of value within 3.2 kilometers (1.5 miles) of the facilities. This study primarily evaluated farmland without dwellings. These findings were confirmed by a second study at the University of
Missouri-Columbia by Hamed, Johnson, and Miller that found that proximity to a hog CAFO does have an impact on property values. Based on the averages of collected data, loss of land values within 3 miles of a hog CAFO would be approximately $2.68 million (US) and the average loss of land value within the 3-mile area was approximately $112 (US) per acre.1
Real estate appraisers have also noted the problems associated with property values and large hog operations. In an article in the July, 2001 Appraisal Journal, John Kilpatrick found that "[w]hile the appraisal profession has only begun to quantify the loss attributable to CAFOs,….diminished marketability, loss of use and enjoyment, and loss of exclusivity can result in a diminishment ranging from 50% to nearly 90% of otherwise unimpaired value."
Tax Impacts of Reduced Property Values
A compilation by the Sierra Club of tax adjustments by county assessors in eight states documented lower property taxes for neighbors of facilities like those run by Premium Standard Farms. Local property tax assessments were lowered in Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and Missouri by ten the thirty percent due to their close proximity to the corporate hog CAFOs.
Diminishment effects continue to be considered when tax valuations are determined around large CAFOs. On September 14, 2001, the Clark County, Illinois Supervisor of Assessments announced the county has established an assessment abatement for the fifty residential homes around the Welsh Farm (a hog CAFO) in northeast Clark County. For those homes within a half-mile of the hog production facility, there is a 30 percent reduction in the property assessment; 25 percent reduction within three-quarters of a mile; 20 percent within one mile; 15 percent within one and one-quarter miles; and 10 percent for one and one-half miles.
GOGLSM Recommendations
1. Due to the potential loss of real property value near the Pine Valley Ranch, LLC laying facility, GOGLSM recommends that the owners and operators in this draft permit application be required to pay for an independent real property assessment within a ten-mile radius of the proposed facility to establish current real property values as a benchmark.
2. We also recommend that another independent real property assessment be conducted every year for the five years of these permits with any loss in real property values in the ten-mile radius be paid to the real property owners for their loss by owners of the Pine Valley Ranch, LLC.
Concerns with the Misleading and False Information in the PTO and PTI Permit Application
There are many issues GOGLSM has with the Pine Valley Ranch, LLC PTO and PTI Permit Application and based on the errors and the incompleteness of the permit application and according to Ohio Revised Code 901:10-1-03 – “Criteria for decision-making” by the Director
901:10-1-03 – (A)(1) -) The permit application contains misleading or false information.
Items of Misleading and False Information in the Permit Applications
901:10-1-03 – (B) - The director may deny, modify, suspend or revoke a permit to install or permit to operate if the applicant, owner, operator or persons associated in the operation of concentrated animal feeding facilities, have a history of substantial noncompliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, as defined in section 6109.01 of the Revised Code, any other applicable state laws pertaining to environmental protection or environmental laws of another country that indicates that the applicant or owner or operator lacks sufficient reliability, expertise and competence to operate the facility in substantial compliance with Chapter 903. of the Revised Code and this chapter.
901:10-1-03 - ((B)(1)(b) If the applicant or permittee is a sole proprietor or any other business concern, provide the full name, date of birth, and business address of each individual or business concern holding more than fifty per cent of the equity in the applicant or permittee;
Green Valley Ranch Notice of intent
Saturday, May 30, 2015 1:47 PM
Public Notice
Notice of Intent
Public Notice - Green Valley Ranch LLC, being the developers of Layer Houses and Egg Processing Building, located in the Southeast and Southwest Quarters, Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 14 East, Jay County, Indiana is submitting Notice of Intent to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Water Quality for our intent to comply with the requirements of 327 IAC 15-5 (Rule 5) to discharge storm water from Construction Activities associated with the new development. The project will discharge water into the Salamonie River.
Questions or comments regarding this project should be directed to:
Chris Rindler, Owner
2104 E. 300 South
Portland, IN 47371
Chris Rindler - Businesses
Businesses in Ohio:
h\p://www5.sos.state.oh.us/ords/f?p=100:2:0::NO:RP::
Business Name: RW FAMILY FARMS, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
10/06/2014 Active - - -
2366909 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
CHRIS RINDLER
Business Name: R VALLEY FARMS LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
02/12/2015 Active - - -
2366934 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
CHRIS RINDLER
Business Name: RB FAMILY FARMS LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
02/12/2015 Active - - -
2366969 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
CHRIS RINDLER
Business Name: RW PULLETS LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
02/12/2015 Active
Other Businesses Registered By Brian J. Winner
https://www.statelog.com/brian-winner-farms-llc-new-weston-oh
PINELAND LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
FOXTAIL RANCH LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
WINNER EGG LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
J STAR FARMS LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
RACE VIEW FARMS LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
http://www.bizapedia.com/addresses/6183-ST-RT-705-NEW-WESTONOH-
45348.html
Prairie Star Farms LLC
Brian Winner Farms LLC
Winner Livestock Farms LLC
5 W Farms, LLC
Ralph Rindler Businesses
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
http://www5.sos.state.oh.us/ords/f?p=100:2:0::NO:RP::
RINDLER FARMS, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 11/24/2010 Active
1421757 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
RINDLER FAMILY REAL ESTATE, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 11/06/2003 Active
1421916 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
RINDLER POULTRY, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 11/06/2003 Active
1447870 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
RINDLER GROUP LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 03/10/2004 Active
2155733 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
INDIAN TRAIL PULLETS, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 12/03/2012 Active
2307007 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
RINDLER FARMS INDIANA, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 06/27/2014 Active
HIllandale Farms Violations and Lawsuits (by Association with current permit applicants)
Hillandale Farms, Inc. has an agent John Hicks 5424 Watkins Road address same as RB Family Farms, LLC, Rindler Poultry. Below websites show Hillandale is a subsidiary to Cal Maine Foods who has violations listed below. (by Association)
Hillandale Farms of PA subsidiary of Cal Maine Foods
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4489960
Hillandale Farms, Inc.
http://www.ohiocorporates.com/corp/909951.html
http://www.manta.com/c/mtw4rk1/hillandale-farms-inc
at the 5424 Watkins Road St. Henry, OH (Rindler Poultry, RB Family Farms, LLC address on PTI PTO)
PILAR M. DE CASTRO & CO., INC. et al v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC. et al
Filed: January 8, 2009 as 2:2009cv00101
Plaintiff: PILAR M. DE CASTRO & CO., INC., DONN CAMLIN, PATRICIA TARRANCE and others
Defendant: CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Court: Third Circuit › Pennsylvania › Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes › Plaintiff
COUNTRY FOODS v. HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA, INC. et al
Filed: October 23, 2008 as 2:2008cv05078
Plaintiff: COUNTRY FOODS
Defendant: HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA, INC., CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Court: Third Circuit › Pennsylvania › Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes › Plaintiff
Cooper Farms Violations and Lawsuits (by Association with current permit applicants)
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., ET AL. V COOPER, ET AL.
Plaintiff:
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, FOOD & WATER WATCH, FARM SANCTUARY and GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Defendant:
ROY COOPER and CAROL L. FOLT
Case Number:
1:2016cv00025
Filed:
January 13, 2016
Court:
North Carolina Middle District Court
Office:
NCMD Office
County:
Alamance
Referring Judge:
JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE
Presiding Judge:
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER
Nature of Suit:
Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action:
42:1983
Jury Demanded By:
None
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. Violations and Lawsuits (by Association with current permit applicants)
http://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/cal-maine-foods
Grubbs v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: March 31, 2016 as 5:2016cv00255
Plaintiff: Jonia L. Grubbs
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Middle District Court
Type: Labor › Other Labor Litigation
United States of America et al v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: April 13, 2015 as 3:2015cv00278
Plaintiff: United States of America , STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Clean Water Act
Court: Fifth Circuit › Mississippi › Mississippi Southern District Court
Type: Other Statutes › Environmental Matters
Popoca v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. et al
Filed: November 12, 2014 as 8:2014cv02824
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. , One Balance, Inc.
Plaintiff: Noe Popoca
Cause Of Action: Job Discrimination (Race)
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Middle District Court
Type: Labor › Other Labor Litigation
Valle v. Wharton County Foods, LLC et al
Filed: September 4, 2014 as 4:2014cv02556
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc, Wharton County Foods, LLC
Plaintiff: Marlon Valle
Cause Of Action: (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Court: Fifth Circuit › Texas › Texas Southern District Court
Type: Labor › Fair Labor Standards Act
Popoca v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. et al
Filed: February 18, 2014 as 8:2014cv00412
Defendant: Professional Management Services Group, Inc., One Balance, Inc. , Adolphus Baker and others
Plaintiff: Noe Popoca
Cause Of Action: Denial of Overtime Compensation
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Middle District Court
Type: Labor › Fair Labor Standards Act
Warner v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: September 21, 2013 as 2:2013cv14378
Plaintiff: Rahmin Warner
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Fair Labor Standards Act
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Southern District Court
Type: Labor › Fair Labor Standards Act
Marquez v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: May 21, 2013 as 8:2013cv01354
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff: Alma Marquez
Cause Of Action: Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Middle District Court
Type: Labor › Labor: Fair Standards
Equal Employment Opportunity Commision v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: May 2, 2013 as 5:2013cv00382
Plaintiff: Equal Employment Opportunity Commision
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Employment Discrimination
Court: Fifth Circuit › Texas › Texas Western District Court
Type: Civil Rights › Civil Rights: Jobs
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. et al v. UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, INC. et al
Filed: January 9, 2012 as 2:2012cv00088
Plaintiff: KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. , THE KELLOGG COMPANY , GENERAL MILLS, INC. and others
Defendant: UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, INC. , UNITED STATES EGG MARKETERS, INC. , CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Clayton Act
Court: Third Circuit › Pennsylvania › Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes › Antitrust
Ohio Revised Code Section 1521.16 requires that any owner of a facility, or combination of facilities, with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water daily, register such facilities with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Resources. 100,000 Gallons Per Day (GPD) = 0.1 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) = 4200 Gallons Per Hour (GPH) = 70 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) is required to obtain a “Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Permit” by Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources.
90% production
2,220,000 chicks /1000 = 2,200 hens
2,200 x 71gals = 157,620 gals/day
157,620 gals x 365 days = 57,531,300 gals/yr. livestock consumption
Poultry Science Assoc., 2005 report, states average water use in an egg washing facility uses 2,100/day
2,100 gals X 365 days = 766,500 gals/yr. egg washing facility
Total daily water usage
57,531,3000+766,500 = 58,297,800gals./yr. or 159,720 gals./day not 91,000 which would not require a permit.
901:10-1-03 – (A)(3) - (3) The plans for the manure management plan, the insect and rodent control plan and any other plans governing the operation fails to conform to best management practices and to rules of this chapter.
5. Annual manure produced from the layer operation.
=Manure/year x No. of layers x portion of year building is occupied
=32 lb manure/layer x 60,000 layers x 50 weeks in production/52 weeks in a year x 1 ton/
2,000 lb
=(32 x 60,000 x 50/52)/2000
=923 ton manure/year
=923/12 = 77 ton/month
=923/365 = 2.53 ton/day
(SOURCE: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service and Indiana Soil Conservation Service)
90% PRODUCTION
32 lbs./yr X 2,220,000 X 52weeks = 71,040,000 actual tons/yr.
Per Application
Manure Trucks – 15/week @ 80,000 lbs.= 15trucks/week X 52 weeks X 80,000 = 62,400,000lbs/yr = 31,200 tons/yr.
Diff in Actual tonnage vs. Application calculated tonnage
71,040,000/yr. – 31,200tons/yr.= diff of 71,008,800 tons/yr.
6. The draft permit calls for composting dead animals in the manure lagoons which are designed to store manure for 353 days for manure storage and 615 days for liquid manure. This is an improper number of days for storing dead animals that can only be stored for 10 days according to the Ohio EPA regulations and then moved to a secondary composting facility.
7. There is no septic plan for human waste. What are the laws or regulations on combining human and animal waste be combined, drag-lined or irrigated?
901:10-1-03(A)(5) - The facility is not designed or constructed as a non-discharge system or operated to prevent the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state or to otherwise protect water quality;
GOGLSM Recommends the Following Action
Due to the numerous misleading and false in this application there is just cause to DENY this permit application for PTO and PTI by Pine Valley Ranch, LLC.
GOGLSM would like to receive the Department of Agriculture’s ruling and the public hearing transcript on this Livestock Permit for Pine Valley Ranch, LLC. We would also like to know the specific process the ODA uses to research for violations, lawsuits and the full extent of corporation ownership and by proposed CAFOs. The attached violations are primarily Ohio EPA and the Department of Agriculture.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Anderson, President
Guardians of Grand Lake St. Marys
Kate Anderson, President
Guardians of Grand Lake St. Marys
247 E. Sycamore St.
Columbus, OH 43206
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Division of Livestock Environmental Permitting (DLEP)
8995 East Main St.
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
To Whom It May Concern:
The Guardians of Grand Lake St. Marys (GOGLSM) is strongly opposed to the draft Permit to Install (PTI) and the draft Permit to Operate (PTO) that has been issued to Pine Valley Ranch, LLC, 8704 St. Rt. 274, New Bremen, OH, Auglaize County, Jennings Township in the Auglaize and St. Marys Watershed.
GOGLSM recommends that there be a moratorium on any additional livestock coming into in polluted watersheds from farm run-off by family farms, AFOs, CAFOs or MCAFFs until the pollution problem is permanently resolved in Grand Lake St. Marys (GLSM), Lake Erie and other Ohio bodies of water.
We also ask that all farms with livestock be permitted regardless of size. The size of a farm should not matter when it comes to permitting. We believe this is important since many of Ohio’s waterways are polluted by such..
GOGLSM is opposed to the permits for Pine Valley Ranch, LLC based for the following concerns.
Health
Attached is a copy of a letter by John Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health regarding the public health concerns with a facility of 1.7 million-layer capacity poultry operation. The health concerns stated in the letter, include the following:
“1. Infections resulting from the potential transmission of pathogens (disease-causing organisms, including bacteria that can infect people) from poultry operations to nearby residents, for example, via flies or contaminated air or water;
2. Health effects, including asthma, bronchitis and allergic reactions with exposure to air pollution from poultry operations; and
3. Health effects (e.g. thyroid problems, methemoglobinemia, neurological impairments (see attached 2011 lawsuit Cooper Farms facility causing permanent brain damage), liver damage) associated with exposures to nitrates, drug residues and other hazards that may be present in ground/or surface waters contaminated by manure from poultry operations.”
GOGLSM Recommendations
There should be a fly trapping program to establish a baseline for the average number of flies present prior to the start-up of the MCAFF to establish if a fly nuisance problem exists in the area prior and after the construction and management of the MCAFF. Neighboring properties within a ten-mile radius should be thoroughly compensated for any nuisance created by flies.
Decline in Real Property Values
The potential for real property valuation loss is possible. A recent study by John A. Kilpatrick, "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values", The Appraisal Journal, July, 2001, p. 306. Describes the impacts of the nearby real estate stemming from the development of enterprises such as the proposed MCAFF PTI and PTO by Pine Valley Ranch, LLC.
Below is the summary of their findings.
Demonstrated Economic Losses—The Evidence
The magnitude of the economic loss suffered by the neighbors of a CAFO can be significant. The costs shifted to the residents of the region by a CAFO adversely affect the value of neighboring properties. This, in turn, lowers the taxable value of these properties and shifts costs to all other residents of the region. Palmquist et al., in a 1995 study in North Carolina, found that neighboring property values were affected by large hog operations based on two factors: the existing hog density in the area and the distance from the facility. The maximum predicted decrease in real estate value of 7.1 percent occurred for houses within one-half mile of a new facility in a low hog farm density area. 1997 and 1998 updates of this study found that home values decreased by $.43 for every additional hog in a five-mile radius of the house. For example, there was a decrease of 4.75% (about $3000) of the value of residential property within
1/2 mile of a 2,400 head finishing operation where the mean housing price was $60,800.8
A 1996 study by Padgett and Johnson found much larger decreases in home value than those forecast by Palmquist. In Iowa, hog CAFOs decreased the value of homes in a half-mileradius of the facilities by 40%, within 1 mile by 30%, 1.5 miles by 20% and 2 miles by 10%.
In addition, an Iowa study found that while some agricultural land values increased due to an increased demand for “spreadable acreage,” total assessed property value, including residential, fell in proximity to hog operations.
An eighteen months study of 75 rural land transactions near Premium Standard's hog operations in Putnam County, Missouri conducted by the departments of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri found an average $58 per acre loss of value within 3.2 kilometers (1.5 miles) of the facilities. This study primarily evaluated farmland without dwellings. These findings were confirmed by a second study at the University of
Missouri-Columbia by Hamed, Johnson, and Miller that found that proximity to a hog CAFO does have an impact on property values. Based on the averages of collected data, loss of land values within 3 miles of a hog CAFO would be approximately $2.68 million (US) and the average loss of land value within the 3-mile area was approximately $112 (US) per acre.1
Real estate appraisers have also noted the problems associated with property values and large hog operations. In an article in the July, 2001 Appraisal Journal, John Kilpatrick found that "[w]hile the appraisal profession has only begun to quantify the loss attributable to CAFOs,….diminished marketability, loss of use and enjoyment, and loss of exclusivity can result in a diminishment ranging from 50% to nearly 90% of otherwise unimpaired value."
Tax Impacts of Reduced Property Values
A compilation by the Sierra Club of tax adjustments by county assessors in eight states documented lower property taxes for neighbors of facilities like those run by Premium Standard Farms. Local property tax assessments were lowered in Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and Missouri by ten the thirty percent due to their close proximity to the corporate hog CAFOs.
Diminishment effects continue to be considered when tax valuations are determined around large CAFOs. On September 14, 2001, the Clark County, Illinois Supervisor of Assessments announced the county has established an assessment abatement for the fifty residential homes around the Welsh Farm (a hog CAFO) in northeast Clark County. For those homes within a half-mile of the hog production facility, there is a 30 percent reduction in the property assessment; 25 percent reduction within three-quarters of a mile; 20 percent within one mile; 15 percent within one and one-quarter miles; and 10 percent for one and one-half miles.
GOGLSM Recommendations
1. Due to the potential loss of real property value near the Pine Valley Ranch, LLC laying facility, GOGLSM recommends that the owners and operators in this draft permit application be required to pay for an independent real property assessment within a ten-mile radius of the proposed facility to establish current real property values as a benchmark.
2. We also recommend that another independent real property assessment be conducted every year for the five years of these permits with any loss in real property values in the ten-mile radius be paid to the real property owners for their loss by owners of the Pine Valley Ranch, LLC.
Concerns with the Misleading and False Information in the PTO and PTI Permit Application
There are many issues GOGLSM has with the Pine Valley Ranch, LLC PTO and PTI Permit Application and based on the errors and the incompleteness of the permit application and according to Ohio Revised Code 901:10-1-03 – “Criteria for decision-making” by the Director
901:10-1-03 – (A)(1) -) The permit application contains misleading or false information.
Items of Misleading and False Information in the Permit Applications
901:10-1-03 – (B) - The director may deny, modify, suspend or revoke a permit to install or permit to operate if the applicant, owner, operator or persons associated in the operation of concentrated animal feeding facilities, have a history of substantial noncompliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, as defined in section 6109.01 of the Revised Code, any other applicable state laws pertaining to environmental protection or environmental laws of another country that indicates that the applicant or owner or operator lacks sufficient reliability, expertise and competence to operate the facility in substantial compliance with Chapter 903. of the Revised Code and this chapter.
- Pine Valley Ranch, LLC has Brian J. Winner identified as the Certified Livestock Manager
901:10-1-03 - ((B)(1)(b) If the applicant or permittee is a sole proprietor or any other business concern, provide the full name, date of birth, and business address of each individual or business concern holding more than fifty per cent of the equity in the applicant or permittee;
- All businesses have not been listed for the people listed in the PTI, PTO. For example Chris Rindler has registered in Indiana at 2104 E. 300 South, Portland, Indiana 47371. Cooper Farms also has this address listed as one of their “Commercial Table Egg Layer Flocks. Several facilities have not been listed for Brian Winner and Ralph Rindler.
Green Valley Ranch Notice of intent
Saturday, May 30, 2015 1:47 PM
Public Notice
Notice of Intent
Public Notice - Green Valley Ranch LLC, being the developers of Layer Houses and Egg Processing Building, located in the Southeast and Southwest Quarters, Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 14 East, Jay County, Indiana is submitting Notice of Intent to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Water Quality for our intent to comply with the requirements of 327 IAC 15-5 (Rule 5) to discharge storm water from Construction Activities associated with the new development. The project will discharge water into the Salamonie River.
Questions or comments regarding this project should be directed to:
Chris Rindler, Owner
2104 E. 300 South
Portland, IN 47371
Chris Rindler - Businesses
Businesses in Ohio:
h\p://www5.sos.state.oh.us/ords/f?p=100:2:0::NO:RP::
Business Name: RW FAMILY FARMS, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
10/06/2014 Active - - -
2366909 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
CHRIS RINDLER
Business Name: R VALLEY FARMS LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
02/12/2015 Active - - -
2366934 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
CHRIS RINDLER
Business Name: RB FAMILY FARMS LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
02/12/2015 Active - - -
2366969 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
CHRIS RINDLER
Business Name: RW PULLETS LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
02/12/2015 Active
Other Businesses Registered By Brian J. Winner
https://www.statelog.com/brian-winner-farms-llc-new-weston-oh
PINELAND LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
FOXTAIL RANCH LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
WINNER EGG LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
J STAR FARMS LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
RACE VIEW FARMS LLC, NEW WESTON, OH
http://www.bizapedia.com/addresses/6183-ST-RT-705-NEW-WESTONOH-
45348.html
Prairie Star Farms LLC
Brian Winner Farms LLC
Winner Livestock Farms LLC
5 W Farms, LLC
Ralph Rindler Businesses
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
http://www5.sos.state.oh.us/ords/f?p=100:2:0::NO:RP::
RINDLER FARMS, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 11/24/2010 Active
1421757 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
RINDLER FAMILY REAL ESTATE, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 11/06/2003 Active
1421916 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
RINDLER POULTRY, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 11/06/2003 Active
1447870 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
RINDLER GROUP LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 03/10/2004 Active
2155733 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
INDIAN TRAIL PULLETS, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 12/03/2012 Active
2307007 Agent/Registrant/Incorporator Name
RALPH RINDLER Business Name
RINDLER FARMS INDIANA, LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 06/27/2014 Active
HIllandale Farms Violations and Lawsuits (by Association with current permit applicants)
Hillandale Farms, Inc. has an agent John Hicks 5424 Watkins Road address same as RB Family Farms, LLC, Rindler Poultry. Below websites show Hillandale is a subsidiary to Cal Maine Foods who has violations listed below. (by Association)
Hillandale Farms of PA subsidiary of Cal Maine Foods
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4489960
Hillandale Farms, Inc.
http://www.ohiocorporates.com/corp/909951.html
http://www.manta.com/c/mtw4rk1/hillandale-farms-inc
at the 5424 Watkins Road St. Henry, OH (Rindler Poultry, RB Family Farms, LLC address on PTI PTO)
PILAR M. DE CASTRO & CO., INC. et al v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC. et al
Filed: January 8, 2009 as 2:2009cv00101
Plaintiff: PILAR M. DE CASTRO & CO., INC., DONN CAMLIN, PATRICIA TARRANCE and others
Defendant: CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Court: Third Circuit › Pennsylvania › Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes › Plaintiff
COUNTRY FOODS v. HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA, INC. et al
Filed: October 23, 2008 as 2:2008cv05078
Plaintiff: COUNTRY FOODS
Defendant: HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA, INC., CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Court: Third Circuit › Pennsylvania › Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes › Plaintiff
Cooper Farms Violations and Lawsuits (by Association with current permit applicants)
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., ET AL. V COOPER, ET AL.
Plaintiff:
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, FOOD & WATER WATCH, FARM SANCTUARY and GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Defendant:
ROY COOPER and CAROL L. FOLT
Case Number:
1:2016cv00025
Filed:
January 13, 2016
Court:
North Carolina Middle District Court
Office:
NCMD Office
County:
Alamance
Referring Judge:
JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE
Presiding Judge:
THOMAS D. SCHROEDER
Nature of Suit:
Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action:
42:1983
Jury Demanded By:
None
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. Violations and Lawsuits (by Association with current permit applicants)
http://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/cal-maine-foods
Grubbs v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: March 31, 2016 as 5:2016cv00255
Plaintiff: Jonia L. Grubbs
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Middle District Court
Type: Labor › Other Labor Litigation
United States of America et al v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: April 13, 2015 as 3:2015cv00278
Plaintiff: United States of America , STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Clean Water Act
Court: Fifth Circuit › Mississippi › Mississippi Southern District Court
Type: Other Statutes › Environmental Matters
Popoca v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. et al
Filed: November 12, 2014 as 8:2014cv02824
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. , One Balance, Inc.
Plaintiff: Noe Popoca
Cause Of Action: Job Discrimination (Race)
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Middle District Court
Type: Labor › Other Labor Litigation
Valle v. Wharton County Foods, LLC et al
Filed: September 4, 2014 as 4:2014cv02556
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc, Wharton County Foods, LLC
Plaintiff: Marlon Valle
Cause Of Action: (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Court: Fifth Circuit › Texas › Texas Southern District Court
Type: Labor › Fair Labor Standards Act
Popoca v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. et al
Filed: February 18, 2014 as 8:2014cv00412
Defendant: Professional Management Services Group, Inc., One Balance, Inc. , Adolphus Baker and others
Plaintiff: Noe Popoca
Cause Of Action: Denial of Overtime Compensation
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Middle District Court
Type: Labor › Fair Labor Standards Act
Warner v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: September 21, 2013 as 2:2013cv14378
Plaintiff: Rahmin Warner
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Fair Labor Standards Act
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Southern District Court
Type: Labor › Fair Labor Standards Act
Marquez v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: May 21, 2013 as 8:2013cv01354
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff: Alma Marquez
Cause Of Action: Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards
Court: Eleventh Circuit › Florida › Florida Middle District Court
Type: Labor › Labor: Fair Standards
Equal Employment Opportunity Commision v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Filed: May 2, 2013 as 5:2013cv00382
Plaintiff: Equal Employment Opportunity Commision
Defendant: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Employment Discrimination
Court: Fifth Circuit › Texas › Texas Western District Court
Type: Civil Rights › Civil Rights: Jobs
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. et al v. UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, INC. et al
Filed: January 9, 2012 as 2:2012cv00088
Plaintiff: KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. , THE KELLOGG COMPANY , GENERAL MILLS, INC. and others
Defendant: UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, INC. , UNITED STATES EGG MARKETERS, INC. , CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Clayton Act
Court: Third Circuit › Pennsylvania › Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes › Antitrust
- The preparer of this permit application has greatly underestimated water use calculations.
Ohio Revised Code Section 1521.16 requires that any owner of a facility, or combination of facilities, with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water daily, register such facilities with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Resources. 100,000 Gallons Per Day (GPD) = 0.1 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) = 4200 Gallons Per Hour (GPH) = 70 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) is required to obtain a “Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Permit” by Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources.
90% production
2,220,000 chicks /1000 = 2,200 hens
2,200 x 71gals = 157,620 gals/day
157,620 gals x 365 days = 57,531,300 gals/yr. livestock consumption
Poultry Science Assoc., 2005 report, states average water use in an egg washing facility uses 2,100/day
2,100 gals X 365 days = 766,500 gals/yr. egg washing facility
Total daily water usage
57,531,3000+766,500 = 58,297,800gals./yr. or 159,720 gals./day not 91,000 which would not require a permit.
901:10-1-03 – (A)(3) - (3) The plans for the manure management plan, the insect and rodent control plan and any other plans governing the operation fails to conform to best management practices and to rules of this chapter.
5. Annual manure produced from the layer operation.
=Manure/year x No. of layers x portion of year building is occupied
=32 lb manure/layer x 60,000 layers x 50 weeks in production/52 weeks in a year x 1 ton/
2,000 lb
=(32 x 60,000 x 50/52)/2000
=923 ton manure/year
=923/12 = 77 ton/month
=923/365 = 2.53 ton/day
(SOURCE: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service and Indiana Soil Conservation Service)
90% PRODUCTION
32 lbs./yr X 2,220,000 X 52weeks = 71,040,000 actual tons/yr.
Per Application
Manure Trucks – 15/week @ 80,000 lbs.= 15trucks/week X 52 weeks X 80,000 = 62,400,000lbs/yr = 31,200 tons/yr.
Diff in Actual tonnage vs. Application calculated tonnage
71,040,000/yr. – 31,200tons/yr.= diff of 71,008,800 tons/yr.
6. The draft permit calls for composting dead animals in the manure lagoons which are designed to store manure for 353 days for manure storage and 615 days for liquid manure. This is an improper number of days for storing dead animals that can only be stored for 10 days according to the Ohio EPA regulations and then moved to a secondary composting facility.
7. There is no septic plan for human waste. What are the laws or regulations on combining human and animal waste be combined, drag-lined or irrigated?
901:10-1-03(A)(5) - The facility is not designed or constructed as a non-discharge system or operated to prevent the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state or to otherwise protect water quality;
- Page 89. States the proposed facility is in the boundaries of a Sole Source Aquifer designated by USEPA that may be a violation of 901:10-2-02.
- Page 106 states that the lagoon will be 20 feet deep, page 108 states it should be dug 10 feet beyond or 5 feet wider. Maps do not include the 10 feet beyond or 5 feet wider.
- Well logs show that the lagoon will be built in the static water level of nearby well 217627 that is 11 feet. There is also a well at 25 feet static water level, well number 2007381.
- Page 148 does not state where the pump station will be pumping to?
- Page 176 shows 18,333 tons. This appears to be false due to the amount is underestimated and should be closer to 33,000 tons.
- Will human waste be put in the egg wash water lagoon? How many employees?
- The permit requires a “Construction Storm Water NPDES Permit” as required under (Rules 901-10-2-04 [E] and 901:10-3-11) because more than one acre will be disturbed.
- There is no plan for air quality monitoring should be conducted monthly by an independent party with owners of Pine Valley Ranch, LLC being assessed fines to the fullest extent for any violations under federal and state laws.
- With water usage estimated at 157,720 gallons per day there is no guarantee that water usage will NOT interfere with other farm operations in the watershed. A hydrology report should be included and a financial reimbursement plan for any neighbor or neighboring farms in the watershed.
- Can ODA explain why the soil boring page facility map on the WDC Eggs, LLC page 41 of their PTI, PTO is the map for the Pine Valley Ranch, LLC on page 101 of their PTI, PTO?
- Attached are maps from USDA that show this location as VERY LIMITED for Irrigation, Lagoons, Manure, and Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration. ("Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.)
GOGLSM Recommends the Following Action
Due to the numerous misleading and false in this application there is just cause to DENY this permit application for PTO and PTI by Pine Valley Ranch, LLC.
GOGLSM would like to receive the Department of Agriculture’s ruling and the public hearing transcript on this Livestock Permit for Pine Valley Ranch, LLC. We would also like to know the specific process the ODA uses to research for violations, lawsuits and the full extent of corporation ownership and by proposed CAFOs. The attached violations are primarily Ohio EPA and the Department of Agriculture.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Anderson, President
Guardians of Grand Lake St. Marys
No-Till Farming is on the Rise in the U.S.
Article from the Washington Post
Here's a fascinating trend in U.S. agriculture that's been going on for the past few decades. It's the dramatic rise ... of no-till farming:
(U.S. Department of Agriculture)
"No-till farming" sounds pretty dull at first. The term basically describes ways to grow crops each year without disturbing the soil through tillage or plowing.
But it's an important idea. Plowing and tillage are major sources of soil erosion around the world — they were key factors behind the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. What's more, churning up all that soil can release a significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, helping to warm the planet. So, since the 1980s, more and more American farmers (and policymakers) have started taking no-till farming seriously.
In the United States, no-till farming is now growing at a pace of about 1.5 percent per year, according to the Department of Agriculture. In 2009, about 35.5 percent of the country's cropland had at least some no-tillage operations — though only 10 percent were full-time no-till operations. (The rest involve a selective use of no-till or a mix of techniques.)
Why did no-till farming spread? This 2008 report (pdf) in Scientific American tells the broader back story. For most of human history, farmers plowed their soil to plant crops. The advent of tractors in the 20th century made it even easier to churn up fields. But as soil erosion became a massive environmental problem around the globe, that slowly changed.
Soybeans grown into corn stalks in a no-till field in Union County, Iowa (USDA)
The advent of new herbicides such as atrazine and paraquat in the 1940s and 1950s allowed farmers to kill weeds without plowing up more soil. And the invention of specialized seeding equipment in the 1960s allowed farmers to plant while barely disturbing the soil. Various federal government subsidies for soil conservation also gave farmers incentives to switch practices — particularly after the 1985 farm bill. So did higher oil prices.
The pros and cons of no-till: As the technique became more widely used, U.S. farmers found that they could conserve water, reduce erosion and use less fossil fuel and labor to grow crops. Cropland erosion in the United States dropped nearly 40 percent between 1982 and 1997.
But the practice can have downsides too: For one, it often leads to heavier use of chemical herbicides to kill weeds, which makes many farmers and consumers uneasy. (It's worth noting, however, that heavy herbicide use may not be inevitable; here's a look at ongoing research on how to reduce it through the use of cover crops and other techniques). The specialized equipment can also cost more upfront, even if it eventually saves time and fuel.
In addition, the transition in farming methods can often be difficult. And there are still some clear advantages to conventional tilling, which can, for instance, allow farmers to start planting earlier in the year after heavy rains, since plowing helps dry out the soil sooner.
Will no-till farming keep spreading? Based on survey data, the Department of Agriculture expects no-till operations to keep spreading in the United States in the years ahead, "albeit at a much reduced pace among corn producers."
(Scientific American)
But what about the rest of the world? That's a trickier question. In 2004, farmers were practicing no-till operations on less than 7 percent of cropland worldwide — and most of that was in the United States, Brazil, Australia, Canada and Argentina. The practice has barely caught on in Europe, Africa or Asia. China has only recently begun taking an interest in the concept (see chart).
A recent report (pdf) from the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) argued that, historically, governments have had to step in to encourage the practice to get it to spread — either by offering research and training or providing financial support to help ease the transition. Australia, for instance, has offered tax credits to farmers to pay for the climate-change benefits from no-till farming.
If that trend caught on, it could have a few big climate benefits. It would lock more carbon in the soil and curtail fossil-fuel use in farm operations. The UNEP estimates that no-tillage operations in the United States have helped avoid 241 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide since the 1970s. That's equivalent to the annual emissions of about 50 million cars. What's more, the practice could help farmers deal with drought, which may become more prevalent in parts of the world if the planet keeps heating up.
It was welcome news today to learn that the WDC Eggs, LLC will not locate their mega-laying chicken facility. Approximately 200 people came out for the public hearing on the PTO and PTI permit application. There were NO comments in support of the facility. Farmers and organizations fighting for clean water found themselves on the same side of the issue. Kate Anderson, Guardians of Grand Lake St. Marys, presented a long list of problems with the permit application. A few of the problems were:
Local farmers were extremely concerned about the enormous amount of water to be used by the mega facility and the company had no plan for covering losses by neighboring farms if their wells would dry up.
The LIA and LRC came out in protest of the application stating the watershed didn't need more pollution.
"It goes to show that when parties set aside their differences and work together then good things happen for our community. We have to live together so let's continue to work together to solve community issues," stated Anderson.
Congratulations to everyone who joined the fight!
- The application was missing many sections were missing, including WDC Eggs, LLC plan for disposing of the human waste. One owner had been charged a violation for mixing untreated human waster and animal waste in the lagoons and then spraying the waste on fields.
- Dept. of Agriculture Chief Kevin Elder had signed off that there had been no violations by the owners of WDC Eggs, LLC. Anderson stated that in one 24 hour period she had been able to able to find a folder full of violations and at least won lawsuit. She questioned Mr. Elder and the Dept. of Agriculture attorney to how this could happen since most of the violations were by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Dept. of Agriculture.
- The application did not include a containment area for the two 1,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks.
- The facility would be built in the water table.
- There was no plan in the application for processing dead animals from the facility.
- The application did not include all the corporations owned by WDC Eggs, LLC owners. The set back to Burntwoocd Creek was inadequate.
- There seems to be field tiles near the northside of the facility's lagoons to Burntwood Creek. There seems to be some project construction prior approval of the permit.
Local farmers were extremely concerned about the enormous amount of water to be used by the mega facility and the company had no plan for covering losses by neighboring farms if their wells would dry up.
The LIA and LRC came out in protest of the application stating the watershed didn't need more pollution.
"It goes to show that when parties set aside their differences and work together then good things happen for our community. We have to live together so let's continue to work together to solve community issues," stated Anderson.
Congratulations to everyone who joined the fight!