09-20-95 PCSEP -15-1995 08:31 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02i06
N Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
A� CUMM NITY PLANNING DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE: 15 September 1995
RE: Otsego - Lef-Co Conditional Use Permit
FILE NO: 176.02 - 95.14
This memorandum is intended to respond to questions/concerns at the 6 September meeting of the
Planning Commission at which the Lef-Co feedlot proposal was discussed. The following is a
specific listing of questions raised at the said meeting followed by an attempted response:
1. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that a new feedlot may not be constructed within
1,000 feet of any lake, pond or flowage or within 300 feet of a river or stream. It has
been noted that several ponds and/or flowage other than those under shoreland
jurisdiction exist within 1,000 feet of the proposed feedlot. Is the referenced 1,000
foot setback requirement applicable to all "ponds"?
No. The aforementioned requirement is intended to mimic the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) definition of "shoreland". Minnesota Rule 7020.0300, Subp.
2 of the MPCA's animal feedlot regulations define shoreland as:
Land located within the following distances from the ordinary high water
elevation of public waters:
A. Y.and within 1,000 fest from the normal high water mark of a lake,
pond, or flowage; and
B. Land within 300 feet of a river or stream or the landward side of
floodplain delineated by ordinance on such a river or stream,
whichever is greater.
:,775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
SEP -15-1995 08:31 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03i06
To be specifically recognized is that the MPCA definition makes specific notation of
"public" waters.
While the City regulations do not specifically utilize. the term "public", the reference to a
1,000 foot setback is understood to apply to public water bodies. The City's protected
water bodies are specifically determined by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and assigned a protected water inventory number. These water bodies
are listed within the City's Zoning Ordinance and graphically illustrated on the City's
zoning map.
It is therefore the contention of City staff that the referenced 1,000 foot setback
requirement does not apply to aU ponds and/or flowage.
While the City is constrained to interpret the setback requirements as stated above, it
retains the authority to review the proposed project drainage and require appropriate
conditions regarding the same.
2. 'What assurances are there that other feedlots will not exist in the area in the future?
There are no assurances that other feedlots may not exist in the City in the future. Any
future proposal would be subject to the same processing procedure as the Lef-Co request
and would be required to comply with all applicable MPCA and then City performance
standards.
3. Is a land excavation permit required for the proposed use?
According to the Zoning Ordinance, the excavation of 50 cubic yards or more of sand,
gravel, dirt, etc. requires an excavation permit except in cases where a grading or
drainage plan has been approved as part of a development. Considering that a grading
plan must be submitted (and approved) as part of the conditional use permit processing of
the proposed use, an excavation permit is not required.
4. What assurances exist that ultimate closure or clean up of the feedlot will not become
a financial responsibility of the City?
At this time, there are no specific MPCA rules which would require security to cover
closure of the facility should the operator abandon the facility or go bankrupt. Normally,
the financial liability would remain with the property and subsequent owners and would
not become a City issue unless the property came into City bands. It should also be noted
that if such an abandoned facility became a nuisance, the City would have the authority
04
SEP -15-1995 08=32 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04/06
to enter onto the property and perform whatever remedial action were necessary and
subsequently, assess those costs against the affected property.
S. The City's adopted nuisance ordinance specifically lists the accumulation of manure,
refuse or other debris as a public nuisance affecting health. How does this provision
apply to feedlots or agricultural uses where the spreading of manure is prevalent?
A fundamental principle of zoning is the grouping of similar uses. The City's A-1,
Agricultural Rural Service District has been established for the purposes of preserving,
promoting, maintaining and enhancing the use of land for commercial agricultural
purposes and prevent scattered non-farm growth. The spreading of manure is obviously
a common component of agricultural activities. While accumulations of manure adjacent
to single family residences (i.e., within 200 feet) is admittedly a health concern, the
agricultural districts density requirements (1 per 40) respond in part to standard
agriculturalpractices and there innate characteristics. The City's animal regulations do in
fact acknowledge the nuisance characteristics of manure and resultantly impose minimum
separation requirements (i . e. , 200 feet from residential property lines) .
It should be noted that the City's Nuisance Ordinance is aimed at conditions that are
unusual within a designated area of the City. In other words, common sense must be used
in its interpretation. For example, a well -nun landfill cannot be cited as a nuisance simply
for performing its function, likewise with a farm use such as that presently under
consideration.
6. How will the feedlot impact area property values?
Because no definitive study has been conducted, it is unknown how the proposed feedlot
will impact area property values. According to Randy DehIarias, Wright County
Assessor, property values adjacent to uses with similar odor characteristics (such as
composting facilities or asphalt plants) do not necessarily depreciate. It is, however, his
experience that, in some cases, property values adjacent to such uses increase at a rate
slower than property values in the areas which are not proximate to such uses. At this
point, the Planning Commission has received no specific studies related to the impact of
such an operation on area property values.
7. The XWCA is currently in the process of updating its animal feedlot regulations.
What impact does this have upon the proposal currently under consideration?
It is the applicant's responsibility to satisfy all MPCA requirements in place at the time of
application. The proposed updating of the MPCA feedlot requirements is not applicable
to the development proposal currently before the City.
3
SEP -15-1995 08:33 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05/06
S. To what extent can the City consider the issue of odor in reaching a decision on this
application?
The Zoning Ordinance states that the emission of odor by any use shall be in compliance
with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control (MYCA) Standards,
Minnesota Regulations APC 7005, as amended. Therefore, the MPCA is the responsible
agency for determining the potential odor/air pollution impact from the proposed feedlot.
As suggested by the issuance of the permit, the MPCA has evaluated the potential for air
pollution resulting from odor of the feedlot and determined it to be within acceptable
limits.
The City does, as part of the processing of the conditional use permit, have an ability to
impose additional conditions which are intended to minimize odors resulting from the land
application of manure (i.e., spreading practices, facility location, etc.).
The City may consider the issue of odor in regards to compatibility and land use issues.
Any consideration of odor must, however, be based upon evidence in quantifiable form
of the effect of such odors on area properties. The strength of the odor, duration, and
direction are factors that can be considered, and such evidence should be compared, if
possible, with the odor normally associated with typical agricultural uses within the City.
9. Who will be responsible for monitoring the feedlot operation?
It will be the responsibility of the MPCA to ensure that all conditions of its issued feedlot
permit are upheld. It will be the City's responsibility to ensure that any additional
conditions imposed as part of the conditional use permit are satisfied.
10. What will happen if the applicant wishes to expand the facility?
If the facility is to be expanded, the processing of a conditional use permit amendment
would be necessary. This would include notification to area property owners and a public
hearing.
It is anticipated that any expansion of the facility would also require issuance of a new
MPCA permit. Such expansion would be required to comply with any upgraded standards
which may be in place.
4
SEP -15-1995 08:33 NAC
11.
12.
Do feedlots exist in other cities?
612 595 9837 P.06i06
According to a representative of the UTICA, numerous cities in the State of Minnesota
have animal feedlots. Technically, any city which has a stockyard holds a commercial
animal feedlot. Specific examples of cities cited by the MPCA as having animal feedlots
include:
Falcon Heights
Franklin
Windom
IaVerne
Pelican Rapids
Gaylord
Various animals (University of MN)
2,800 hogs
300 cattle
1,500 hogs
2,500 - 5,000 turkeys
200,000 - 500,000 chickens
Is the proposed use consistent with the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan?
The City's Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) suggests continued agricultural use of the
property. Provided the feedlot proposal satisfies all applicable conditional use permit
criteria, the use is considered consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Hopefully this memorandum successfully addresses questions raised at the 6 September meeting
of the Planning Commission.
City staff will be available at the forthcoming 20 September meeting to discuss these matters in
greater detail.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry KoshaklKevin Kielb
Lef-Co Farms Inc.
Thomas Casey
5
TOTAL P.06
'•�
Thomas E. Casey
Allurney al. Law
2854 Cambridge Lane
Mound, ,Minnesma 55364
( 612 ) 472 1099
Fax: (612 ) 412-4771
September 20, 1995
Andrew J. MacArthur
Attorney at Law
705 Central Avenue East
P.O. Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL
497-2599
RE: Conditional Use Permit Application - Lef-Co Farm, Inc.
Dear Mr. MacArthur,
Mr. Bob Kirmis, the Otsego City Planner, stated in his
September 15, 1995 memorandum that setbacks for the above -
stated CUP application pertain only to public waters
wetlands assigned a protected water inventory number.
Therefore, in his opinion, the only relevant wetland (from
which a setback is measured) is #86-330W, located southwest
of the subject property.
It is the position of my clients that Mr. Kirmis'
interpretation of the ordinance is misplaced and contradicts
it's plain and unambiguous meaning. Instead, my clients
assert that the setbacks are measured from "any pond" (i.e.
wetlands), including those wetlands described in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory Map,
previously submitted by my clients as Exhibits 4 and 5.
Section 20-27-4.E. of the Zoning Ordinance reads as follows:
"All regulations imposed by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency relating to the keeping of farm
animals shall be adhered to and new farm animals
pens or feedlots are prohibited in the following
areas:
1. Within one thousand (1,000) feet of the normal
high water mark of any lake, pond, or flowage;
or within three hundred (300) feet of a river
or stream ..."
The statutes governing statutory construction are applicable
to ordinances. State v. Simonsen, 89 N.W. 2d 910, 918
(1958). Therefore, interpretation of the Otsego ordinance is
governed by Minnesota Statute 645.16 which states, "When the
words of law in their application to an existing situation
are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law
shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the
spirit." Supporting case law includes McCaleb v. Jackson,
239 N.W. 2nd 187, 188 (Minn. 1976), "When the meaning of a
statute is apparent from its language, no further statutory
construction is permitted."
The ordinance is clear and unambiguous. The setback applies
to "any pond." The word "pond" is not qualified by a public
waters designation.
In view of the above -stated rules of interpretation, my
clients object to Mr. Kirmis' exploration of what the
ordinance is "intended" or "understood" to mean. Moreover,
Mr. Kirmis offers no rationale to support his position; he
only offers unsupported conclusions. However, let's assume,
for the purposes of argument, that "intentions" etc. must be
examined. If this section of the Zoning Ordinance was truly
intended to "mimic" the PCA rules as Mr. Kirmis asserts, the
only necessary language is the first part of the ordinance,
"All regulations imposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency relating to the keeping of farm animals must be
strictly adhered to ..." It would have been unnecessary and
redundant to adopt the second half of the ordinance.
Obviously, the ordinance was adopted for a purpose other than
just to "mimic" the PCA Rules.
[It may be that Mr. Kirmis is confusing this issue with the
Shoreland Overlay District (Zoning Code Section 71). This
overlay district incorporates the definition of "shoreland"
on paragraph 11, page 33 of the Zoning Code. Obviously, this
definition is the same as the PCA definition of "shoreland"
contained in Minn. Rule 7020.0300, Subp. 21 and could have
been, but was not, specifically included in Section 20-27-4.E
of the Zoning Code.]
[It is also suggested in the Planner's Report that the
intention of the ordinance was to have a feedlot setback only
from "public water bodies" and that "protected" water bodies
are only determined by the DNR. As you are aware, ponds and
wetlands (other than DNR designated wetlands given an
inventory number) are protected under another regulatory
scheme, the Wetlands Conservation Act, incorporated into the
Zoning Code in Section 72. Thus, there is a rational basis
for the feedlot setback regulations to apply to other
wetlands, including wetlands described in the National
Wetlands Inventory Map.]
-2-
According to Section 20-1-4 (page 1) of the Zoning Code, the
most restrictive law or ordinance applies. In this case,
the 1,000 feet setback requirement must apply to any -pond or
wetland.
Assuming that you agree with my clients' position in this
regard, this case could be expedited if you advised the
Planning Commission accordingly on or before their Wednesday,
September 20, 1995 meeting.
Please call me to discuss this matter in further detail.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
Very ruly yours,
Thomas E. Casey
TEC/rf
cc: Elaine Beatty, City of Otsego
clients
file
P.S. - Please include this letter as part of the record in
this proceeding.
-3-
'7 -
Thomas
E. Casey
Attorney at Law
2854 4 Cambridge Lane
Mound. Minnesota 5.5 364
(lil'_') 472 11199
Fax: (612)472 4771
September 20, 1995
City of Otsego
Planning Commission
c/o Elaine Beatty
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
HAND DELIVER
RE: Conditional Use Permit Application - Lef-Co Farm, Inc.
Dear Members of The City Planning Commission:
This letter is submitted in rebuttal to the City Planner's
conclusion that the proposed use is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. The City Planner's memorandum dated
September 15, 1995 states in paragraph 12 (page 5) that the
proposed use "... is considered consistent with the City's
adopted comprehensive plan." This apparently contradicts the
City Planner's previous memorandum dated August 28, 1995
which states on page 4,
" ... the City's land use plan suggests that,
in the long term, low density residential use
occur directly north of the subject property ...
Obviously, the location of an animal feedlot
adjacent to a planned low density residential
development raises compatibility concerns.
In fact, the location of a feedlot upon the subject
site may influence and inhibit the ability of the
City to realistically implement its land use plan."
Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan has this to say about the
issue:
p. 6 - "Agricultural operations disrupt the natural
ecosystem to a limited degree which can become a
significant problem over time. Attention
therefore needs to be given to proper ...
livestock handling methods which reduce loss or
crippling of the natural ecosystem."
p. 18 - Section 34, Township 121, Range 23 (in which
the feedlot and manure lagoon is proposed to be
located) is noted as an area having a "need to
identify localized park facilities." It is my
clients' position that the proposed feedlot and
manure lagoon will be incompatible with the park
area. A lagoon, even if fenced, could be a
danger [or legally speaking, an "attractive
nuisance"] to older children using the park.
p. 26 - Natural/Environmental goals: "... 2. Protect
all environmentally sensitive areas and unique
physical features. 3. Ensure that ... farming
operations are compatible with features of the
natural environment and can be accommodated
without destroying environmental features and
natural amenities. 4. Develop controls that
regulate farming operations ... with respect to
capacity of the natural environmental features
to support such activity."
p. 28 (paragraph 25) - "The City shall consider a
proposed project's waste generation potential
and methods of waste reduction and
material/energy conservation."
p. 29 (paragraph 9) - "Property values are to be
preserved and protected."
p. 34 - The City Planner's memo (dated August 28, 1995)
states on page 5, "Unless there is a threat to
public health or safety, agricultural activities
shall not be limited or curtailed due to impacts
upon non-agricultural uses which have or are
proposing to encroach into rural areas." My
clients are not trying to limit or curtail
present activities. Of course, future
agricultural activities can be curtailed; that
is the whole purpose for the Conditional Use
Permit Process. Moreover, there are threats to
public health and safety as my clients will
continue to show; that is why feedlots are
subject to regulation in the first place.
p. 34 (paragraph 2) "Residential neighborhoods shall be
protected from encroachment or intrusion of
incompatible use types and by adequate buffering
and separation from other residential as well as
non-residential use catectories." [The R-2 zone
residents on west side of Packard Avenue need
the protection of this paragraph.]
-2-
p. 64 (last paragraph) - "It must be recognized that the
separation of rural and non -rural uses is
considered a crucial element in the successful
operation of each use."
p. 67 - Section 34, (T. 121, R. 23) of the city is
guided as Rural Service Area, but is very close
to Long Range Urban Service Area to the north,
as the August 25, 1995 Planning Report (p. 5)
indicates.
p. 87 - "The isolation of rural, agricultural type uses
from an urban development area allow each use
to function as intended and removes potential
nuisance concerns." This language suggests
that where urban and rural land uses conflict,
the city should ensure that no nuisances occur.
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to state the
position of the citizens of Otsego who oppose the Conditional
Use Permit Application.
Very truly yours
Thomas E. Casey
TEC/rf
cc: clients
file
P.S. - Please -include this letter as part of the record in
this proceeding.
-3-
__�.3
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 13400 15TH AVE. N. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55441 612/559-1423 FAX: 612/559-2202
September 18. 199
Cin of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River. MN 55330
RE: Conditional Use Permit - Lef-Co Farm
To the City Government and Interested Persons
Though often difficult and seldom without controversy, change comes to cities and to farms. Lef-Co Farm
is proposing a change which will enable them to adapt to current trends in dairy_ farming. In much the
same way, the City of Otsego must address the challenges of growth.
The City of Otsego is presented with an opportunity already lost to many growing communities. Faced
with the pressures of being near a large metropolitan center, many areas have succumbed to urbanization.
The sacrifice has been a loss of the open spaces and country character cherished by long time residents
and sought by newcomers. Managing growth is a challenging business for any governmental body and
the citizens it serves.
The LeFebvre family has lived and farmed in the Otsego community for five generations. The manner in
which they conduct business and manage their land is well known by their neighbors and others
throughout the state. Their presence is unquestionably an asset to Otsego.
Dairy farming has long been an important aspect of Minnesota's proud farming tradition. Today,
Minnesota is losing dairy farms at a rate of three per day. The farmers Nye work with can tell you why.
The intense labor demand and shrinking profit margin are hardships that most families cannot endure.
Those who cannot or choose not to modernize are being forced out of the business. This trend is
nationwide. Dairy farms, like so many businesses, must take advantage of efficiencies of scale and
modem technology if they are to remain viable.
Milk processing plants and the jobs and economic impact they generate require a stable milkshed. The
loss of smaller farms in the midwest is being made up by dairies and processing capacity going elsewhere.
Already, large dairies and new processing plants are being welcomed in other states. The future of
Minnesota's dairy industry lies with progressive farmers with the courage to expand and modernize.
At the September 6 meeting of the Otsego Planning Commission many issues were discussed. Folks
e..Wressing concern and emotion appear to be reacting to an image of an uncontrolled open stockyard of
yesteryear. Whenever spoken of by opponents, the dairy facility has been referred to as a "commercial
feedlot" to somehow imply that this family-owned business is some evil creation of a large corporation.
Literature filled with half-truths. irrelevancies, and outright falsehoods has been distributed to incite fear
among the residents of your community.
The LeFebvre family has graciously endured these attacks, hoping only that when all the facts are heard
that the City of Otsego and their neighbors will understand that the proposed facility represents progress.
not pestilence. To that end we wish to respond directly to planning issues identified by the City of Otsego
and concerns raised by citizens opposing the project.
Discussion of Issues Raised by Attornev for Citizens Onoosin
In remarks made before the Planning Commission on September 6 by Mr. Thomas E. Casev. attorney_ for
citizens opposing the project. it was suggested that the proposed expansion is motivated solely by
economic factors. and that the Cite was not obliged by statute to 'maximize profits' of a corporation. This
contention brushes aside the broader economic realities faced by dairy farmers seeking to remain
competitive in a changing dairy industry. It also ignores the desire of family farmers to utilize modern
technology so that they can spend less time in the barn and more time with their families. Increased
profitability allows the familv farmer to stay in business. foregoing the ranks of "former dairy farmers".
It was stated that the average dairy farm has about 50 cows. and that the proposed facility is eight times
larger than the average farm. These smaller farms are the very ones Minnesota is losing each day because
they cannot function efficiently enough to remain economically viable. Further. the proposed facility of
350 cows is one half to one fourth the size of other modern dairies being constructed throughout the
midwest. There are numerous facilities with 700 to 1000 or more dairy cattle.
It was suggested that the Planning Commission should concern itself with health and safety issues, beyond
the review and approval already provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. It was charged that
because MPCA is in the process of reviewing its rules for livestock facilities that it cannot provide
adequate review of projects currently proposed. Having worked with MPCA on many such projects I can
tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. While it is true that a rule revision is in work, the
MPCA currently exercises broad authority to impose restrictions on permittees as deemed necessary and
appropriate by staff engineers reviewing permit applications. Over the last few years the criteria which
are evaluated have expanded, as have design requirements aimed at environmental protection. I can
assure you that potential environmental impacts are thoroughly addressed through the current permitting
process.
Mr. Casey would have us believe that harmful gasses such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and methane
are emitted in amounts which threaten the health of the surrounding community. MPCA has recently
investigated this issue, specifically with regard to hydrogen sulfide, perhaps the most offensive of these. It
was found that measured concentrations were approximately 20 times less than harmful levels. The real
issue for citizens living near livestock facilities is odor. Odor from large swine facilities has driven the
debate over larger livestock confinement facilities in general. This is of far greater significance for swine
facilities, where manure does not crust over to reduce odor emissions. In acknowledging that this
crusting effect reduces odors from dairy manure by approximately 80 percent, Mr. Casey demonstrates a
lack of regard for relevance by comparing odor to radiation from an atomic bomb.
Equally absurd is the comparison of manure to domestic sewage, as though dairy waste would be
discharged to the city sewer for treatment. Such misdirection is also evident in citing elevated nitrogen
levels in rural ground water. While this is certainly an issue of concern it has little to do with the
proposed project. Nitrogen from chemical fertilizers and uncontrolled runoff from inferior facilities of the
past are to blame for this phenomenon. Modern dairy facilities such as the one proposed operate in an
entirely different manner. Animals are housed under roof, with all manure contained and stored in a
lined basin until it can be efficiently utilized as fertilizer. Manure is a superior fertilizer, containing no
synthetic chemicals; it is the natural by-product of milk production. The fiber, organic matter and micro
nutrients in manure help rebuild and improve soil. As such manure utilization represents a means of
abating the loss of precious topsoil.
The manure storage basin liner is to be compacted clay, placed in layers and tested to assure conformance
with specifications. Properly constructed, the proposed basin will discharge a smaller volume than the
septic systems of neighboring residents. Such discharges generally do not threaten water supply wells
which are typically completed in deeper strata.
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 13400 15TH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441
Mr. Casey rightly contends that accumulations of manure constitute a nuisance to be addressed by the
City. Certainly improperly managed manure does represent such a nuisance. Manure piled on the ground
surface, applied to frozen ground or overapplied to limited acreage during the gro«Ong season are
problems which occur as a result of inadequate manure handling and storage capacity. Extended storage
means that manure can be applied before planting or after harvest. Modern methods of land application
employ immediate incorporation to minimize odor and maximize fertilizer value. The proposed facility
will feature 12 -month storage capacity. Manure may be applied twice per year to more fully exploit
fertilizer value and to reduce the amount stored at any time. In any case, land application would not occur
more than twice per year. when conditions are optimal.
Discussion of Comments Made by Citizens Opposing
The emotionally charged remarks offered at the September 6 hearing are certainly of concern to the
Planning Commission and to the LeFebvre family. Malicious and misleading literature was placed on
windshields at the school open house and illegally stuffed into private mailboxes. It is disheartening to
suffer such vehement attacks from one's own neighbors. While obviously sincere, the concerns expressed
have arisen from a lack of understanding and fear of the unknown.
Despite a lack of supporting evidence it is feared that property values will dramatically drop and that odor,
noise, flies, and other nuisances will carry for miles. Anyone who has visited a modern dairy such as the
one proposed has seen that such conditions do not exist. Landscaping, fencing, fly control and other
measures to reduce potential nuisances will also be employed. Lef-Co Farm has historically demonstrated
a conscientious approach to their operations and want very much to continue to be good neighbors. The
proposed facility will be superior to their existing housing for cattle.
One resident expressed fear that water usage at the facility will dry up residential wells. In fact, water
usage is regulated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. A water use permit must be
obtained at the time the supply well is drilled Water usage has been estimated at approximately 15,000
gallons per day, much of which will be recycled and used twice. This volume is small compared to
irrigation wells which commonly draw 500 gallons per minute!
Opponents point out that Otsego is a city, and that farms do not belong in cities. In fact livestock
confinement facilities have been constructed within several Minnesota cities, including nearby Dayton,
Corcoran, and Elk River.
Discussion of Planning and Zoning Issues
In the planning report prepared for the City it is acknowledged that land on three sides of the proposed
site is either currently used for agriculture or planned for log term use as agricultural land. Only the
property to the north of the proposed site has been identified for long term low density residential
development. This property is currently owned by the LeFebvre family.
In acknowledging the importance of agricultural operations within the City, the comprehensive plan
clearly states that encroachment of non-agricultural uses shall not be a basis for denial of a Conditional
Use Permit. In this regard the City is to be commended for a vision of Otsego as a community capable of
striking a balance between the demands of population growth and the traditions which have made it a
strong community and a desirable place to live.
As identified by Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Kirmis, the issues pertinent to this matter encompass
compatibility with intended land use and the presence of a shoreland setback. With regard to the former,
it is clear that the proposed facility is compatible with current zoning. Odors which may occur during the
course of normal operations are not extraordinary for an agricultural area. The improved management
practices to be employed further reduce odor to a level and frequency of occurrence below that currently
found in many agricultural areas.
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 13400 15TH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441
Insofar as the shoreland setback, the intent as identified in the planning report is generally to control the
encroachment of residential development and protect residential properties from flood damage. Another
stated intention of the setback requirement is to maintain natural characteristics of shorelands. Recent
improvements to Packard Avenue (situated between the subject pond and the proposed facility) would
appear to have rendered this a mute issue.
In the September 15 memorandum from Mr. Kirmis to the Planning Commission it is stated that "...the
referenced 1,000 foot setback requirement does not apply to all ponds and/or flowage." The particulars of
this situation and the intent of the setback requirement further suggest that indeed the setback does not
apply in this case. This same memorandum further states that the City "...retains the authority to review
the proposed project drainage and require appropriate conditions regarding the same." Indeed it is the
intention of the Lef-Co Farm to develop a detailed grading plan prior to construction. This plan will be
made available to the City for review to assure that concerns relative to drainage have been adequately
addressed. As such, the Conditional Use Permit should be presently granted with the understanding that
the grading plan will be submitted at a later time.
In closing, on behalf of Lef-Co farm we wish to thank the City of Otsego for the thoughtful consideration
it gives to this matter.
Sincerelv,
B.A. LIES ASSOCI . TES
Carolyn L. Oakley, P.E.
Project Engineer
Distribution:
Lef-Co Farm
Jim LeFebvre
Greg LeFebvre
City Council
Norman F. Freske. Mayor
Ron Black
Larry Fournier
Vem Heidner
Suzanne M.S. Ackerman
Planning & Zoning
Cul Swenson. Chair
Eugene Goenner
Jim Kolles
Arleen Nagel
Richard Nichols
Bruce Rask -
1. G. Roskaft
Mark Wallace
City Staff & Others c/o City of Otsego
Elaine Beatty, City ClerklZoning Administrator
Bob Kirmis
Dave Licht
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
David Nelson
As Requested through City of Otsego
Thomas Casey
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 13400 15TH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441
THE ribune
ih—fine Dury's area ea&Yg tarlair faetaas black
sea with@ atralak III& The Husturs in black ad
wills- sere@/ fed at boats.
atnrvtaw Dairy Is Stress County's sateen busisaiaa.OwDgliff m I q/it, PM4Ca T, Ready sad Brad Fehr.
Riverview Dairy will be state of the art
A major new business will begin
operation next week in Stevens
County. Among its amenities are a
commodious parlor in a smart
black -and -white decor, daily foot
baths, padded resting mats. and
domestic employment for 700 rural
ladies — the four -footed kind]
Riverview Dalry, Inc. is the Fehr
family's latest ventam in livestock
production. Partners are Lloyd Fehr,
his brother Paul (Cork), and Lloyd's
sons Gary. Randy, and Brad, all of
rural Moms. The group also oper-
ate Riverview Feedlots south of
Morris. The family's combined
fanning interests include feed grain,
feeder cattle. and now, dairy cattle.
Riverview's 700 Holsteins are
expected to produce 18,000 pounds
of milk per cow per year — that's
about 12 million pounds of milk
annually, said Gary Fehr, 32, who is
heading up the new dairy.
Although the high-tech operation
Is one of only a handful of similar-
sized
imilarsized dairies in Minnesota, it is part
of a growing trend in rite Midwest
towards large-scale milk production.
Flossie and Mends go computer
In the gleaming ceramic -tile milk-
ing parlor. Gary lowers the
adjustable operator pit floor to a
comfortable working height Twen-
ty-four milking stations line each
side of the pit. Above each station
are the linchpins of this operation —
48 computer terminals.
Retrtaaated tanks agree me at Riverview
Dairy. Al full capecity, eke dairy will produce
a►err 44.006 Paeua of milk per day.
71e eWe•eMbiv art dila parlor hr res sickler alstloat,
eat wim he ewe dat0 - terralsaL
Hein is interim Superintendent
The Morris Area School Board, at
a special meeting Tuesday morning,
formally accepted Superintendent
Dennis Reuke's resignation• cffec.
live September 30.
Rex Hein, the high school's cur-
riculum/staff development coordina-
tor, was appointed interim superin-
tendent. He will take on his new
duties in addition to the ones he cur-
rently has.
Rettke has been offered. and has
accepted. tit superintendent's posi-
Roles, responsibilities
tion for Mahtomedl Public Schools.
In his letter of resignation submitted
to the Board on Tuesday, Rettke
said in pan. "this new opportunity
scents a logical time for me to move
to a new position that I have been
told will be both challenging and
interesting, kind of like Morris was
when 1 started.'
The Board accepted Rettke's res-
ignation "with great reluctance.'
and passed a resolution thanking
him for leaving the school district in
good condition
The Board that voted to interview
oat. and possibly two, outside con•
sultana to help conduct lite satch
for a new superintendent.
Rettke has been an administrator
in the Morris Area School system
for 12 years. He was hired as the
middle school principal in 1983. He
subsequently became the high
school principal, and eight years ago
was hired as the district Supermlen-
dent
Cyrus Board addresses concerns
There was frank, productive dis- given the Option to have more team building and trust.
cussion about responsibilities at a rMpOnsibility for budgetary matters, In addition, the Board directed
special meeting of the Cyrus School ir, in fact, they want it In conjunc- that a letter be sent to parents of
Board Monday evening. tion with this, Superintendent open enrollees, inviting them to
The meeting was called to addrims Fenn r —it "...._.� .�_ �_...,.
The computers automatically
identify each cow as she enters and
leaves the parlor. At the milking sta-
tion, the computer displays her pre-
vious milk output• and records her
current output. "All the terminals
are linked to the central of cc com-
puters," Gary said. '"Btu's where
the information is really used.
The continuous data will allow
staff to immediately identify cows
who are not producing milk at opd-
mum levels. Operators can flag
cows with problems like injuries or
mastitis, and the computer -con-
trolled gate system will automatical-
ly divert those cows to holding pals
for special attattion
"What we'll do is manage by
exception." Gary said. "(r a cow is
okay, eating and producing well. we
won't look at her, we won't Aced to
expend man-hours on her."
Pershing production
That flow of information about
lite had will help Riverview push
towards ambitious production goals
of 30 to 40 thousand pounds of milk
per day.
Such volume means the parlor
will run round the clock. Teams of
operators will milk 150 head an
hour• which amounts to 3 — possi-
bly 3 1/2 — milkings per cow every
24 hours, Gary says. "We have such
a big investment. the key is always
to keep cows in the parlor."
This first year, all of Riverview's
milk will be sold on contract to Val-
ley Queen, a Milbank cheese pro-
cessor. Although advance contract -
(Continued on p. 2)
Certification soug
Hospic
being i
Kathy Werk, directo
Stevens Community Mcdi.
Home Care/Hospice prol
announced cod that the county
program is being rcorganir
For over 10 years. Steve
ty's hospice program, a je
of the Medical Center, th
St. Francis. and Stevens
Public Ilcalth Nursing, c
has been comprised of N
and a volunteer coordinato
Due in large pan to h.
changes during rite past IN
years, the three agencies
have agreed that Steven
Hospice needs to expar
become a Medicare-ccnifi.
Stevens and 'Traverse
arc among just a few in
without a Medicare-ccni
pace program. Up to d
however, none of the
Involved hu been chic Io
Lk time necessary to fi
paper work and perfo
required procedures to get
certification.
According to Werk. Nico
lifrcation is a definite b
patients who need hospice
ocnification, patients still
volunteers in the progr
them, and can benefit
extent from hospice done
with Medicare certificat
can have the following bet
crcd:
• Nursing services on an
Intermittent basis.
• Physician services.
• Drugs, Including oulpat
fo, pain relief and symp.•
inana0ement
• physical, occupational,
speech/language therapy
• Home health aid and ho
Nrvlces.
• Medical supplies and at
• Short-term inpatient car
Including respite care.
• Medical social services.
• Spiritual, dietary, and of
counseling,
• Continuous are during
of "Is.
• Trained volunteers.
• Bereavement services.
Kienstad is a n
Earlier this year the Morris Park
Board Introduced its Adopt.A-Ptak
Program that encourages groups and
individuals to donate Lime and/or
money to help improve the city's
parts.
Over the course of the summer.
the Sun -Tribune has periodically
featured a short article about one of
the city's eight parks• telling a bit
about its history and cuntuu needs.
KJmuad Park is the sixth to be fea.
hired.
Kjenstad Is a small park on the
nordnem shown of r all• rr.,...1 7-f,.
than it was in its early da
don't know for sure when
is, think of geese. They
particularly pleasant spot
gate when passing through
Kjcrtstad is a nature par
city intends to maintain t
of it. There was a skating
for a time in file 1970h, ht
moved to Wells Park in
there also had been a r
round there at one time.
Currently there is a
amount of playground c]t
due park, consisting of I
Innovation
is key at
new dairy
(Continued from p. 1)
ing is common in other areas of
agriculture, such as specialty crops,
"it's fairly new in dairy," Gary com-
mented. "We needed that for stabili-
ty while we get on our feet." Later,
he added, the company may rc-cval-
uate its marketing plan.
Innovations
Advance contracting is not the
only innovation at Riverview Dairy.
The cooling system, for instance,
quick chills milk from 100 degrees
to 38 degrees in less than tcn min-
utes, while the heat from the warn
milk is collected and recycled to
heat water.
Other refinements promote ani-
mal health. Operators sanitize the
milking assembly, known as a claw,
after every use. Cow udders are
automatically sprayed with antisep-
tic, and foot baths on the parlor con-
course help preserve the animals'
hooves.
Extra health precautions and 24-
hour milking are some of the effi-
ciencies possible with large-scale
production, Gary said. But just as
important are questions of lifestyle,
he added. "In a bigger operation,
everybody can work on a regular
schedule, instead of one or two guys
doing everything."
That allows a life away from the
farm too, Gary said, with vacations,
Riverview's two confinement barns will house 700 dairy cows.
some weekends, and more time off.
To those who say farming is princi.
pally a way of life, Gary says: "That
view confuses me, I can't under-
stand it. 1 see farming as a busi-
ness."
Riverview Dairy will operate with
a staff of 16 full-time employees,
aided by a number of specialists,
including a nutritionist and a veteri.
narian.
Vertical integration
Additional services will come
from other branches of the farm. For
example, the dairy will use the
manure management and feed sys.
terns already in place for the cattle
operation. "We grow all our own
feed," Gary said. "We have been
selling some corn, but now we
won't have to. We'll use it all."
In tum, calves from the dairy side
will go to the feedlot aftt
reach 300 pounds.
Indeed, the opportunity for such
Integration was one of the reasons
the Fehrs first started looking into a
dairy more than a year ago. "Plus,
we all like a challenge!" Gary said.
Their research took them to big
dairies all over the country. The pro-
ject broke ground April 19, and
since then, it's been 18 -hour days all
summer. At this point, said Gary a
little wearily, "We've had enough
building. Now we're anxious to get
started."
The Holsteins arrive September
4th.
Open house
Riverside Dairy has not been the
target of the kind of criticism or
controversy that has surrounded
other large livestock confinement
Cyrus: 'Remarkably fine school'
(Continued from p. 1)
course of the meeting.
At its last meeting, the Cyrus
Board invited the Center to come to
the elementary school to help evalu-
ate and define the roles of the
Superintendent, the Board, and
teachers. Monday's visit was
Nathan's second in two weeks.
The Center for School Change,
survey be done of parents' views,
even those parents whose children
have graduated within the past two
or three years.
Nathan acknowledged that it is
difficult to know how to react when
one gets a negative can from a par-
ent. He again suggested that among
other things, pointing out Cvms stu-
should be with the superintendent.
He further said the evaluation
process should not be punitive, but
should be one that involves identifi-
cation of strengths, and also of areas
that need to be worked on.
Nathan suggested that Edlund and
the faculty get together to review
the evaluation forth and the orocess.
The milking parlor concourse includes
a system of computer controlled gates.
farms in Minnesota. On the con-
trary, there has been a lot of local
support for their enterprise, Gary
said. "We believe a business like
this is good for the community,
too."
In fact, he said, so much of the
community has been stopping by to
have a look around that the Fehr
family decided to hold an open
house. Riverview Dairy will be
open to the public this Saturday
afternoon, September 2, from I to 5
p.m. The dairy is located on Stevens
County 59, three miles south of
Morris.
Volunteers needed
(Continued from p. 1)
new program on an equal basis.
Current volunteers will be given a
review of hospice principles and
philosophies, and professional staff
from all three agencies will be given
training in pain management and
hospice philosophy. The advisory
board will be given a review of hos-
pice beliefs and philosophy, as well.
According to Werk, the newly
reorganized hospice program will be
looking for more area volunteers.
New volunteers will receive about
16 hours of training.
Werk said any Stevens County
area residents who are interested in
volunteering may contact her at the
Medical Center's Home CarefHos-
pice program it 589-7629.
"This would be a great time to
start volunteering," she said. "This
newly reorganized hospice should
prove to be an exciting, very worthy
program...
The new program hopes to gener-
ate community interest and under-
standing of hospice by sponsoring a
play to be presented by the Prairie
Wind Players of Barrett.
The play, entitled The Good
Death, is scheduled for October 25.
It concerns a family caring for a
loved one who is dying in the home.
More information on the play will
be announced soon.
a -i9 -9s
bo.ed oL Eduschol
ool
Mocri. Ares
D... board Of Education: 'os Ilion for sition
ad the Suparintendant'sft's aY current PO
I hays been O11ef.rS o01. and rasigrt
Mahto..dl SepteZ ag, 1996. sons
ett.etiva belive, work• end have nY
V' plasm to
wfber■ andcatatt tisld
been • g [.aC eov in mY aes.c
Morels has t. Ypanks tit? for se to 9 il.h.d such
attend sctwo to9•eber we Mve accomv
hof been a good ovD:s itY-
01 school ayinkstr for kids and the Cp°�`�n f nfr
that Dee Da°^ gOOd Morris and takingdoap Inside
as leaving It to uk. L Rn to In
yhile
choice
a'DaelY difticu �r.a School .ora of
°L° °ft:•eb1a. Th. Morris shoo Y
position all stags and givent�lcal ties Lar of
tMt I used to dO pe both
ld will
.scall.^t ells naw owrtunitT °he+. been trris then l
Mre' osltlon that L of Ilk. Mo
woe. to a new P kind
to mgv. and into r.ftin g,
challengl^g and trust- I will
started- ke thing -
for Your r.eftdencs'6 to t
Thank Y transition
work during th.
possible•
Si c..1Y Yours,
Wann1. beet..
12
1
"The Western states are
after that market.
And guess what?
They're going
to take our market."
Steve Watrm, manager
of dairy development
for Land O'Lakes
■ ■
"There is a community
value to keeping those
family operations intact."
Dave Frederickson,
president of Minnesota
Farmers Union
Land o
0
76�
Staff Photos by Charles Blorgen
VV
Connie
Dalryridge owns( James Ridgeway
Inside a packed nifting parlor, The
farm now Long Prairie produces 1.2
Waldvogel,
State dairy experts push expansion to raise profits
By James Walsh
farms that have dominated the ru-
left. and Glynis
the key to Minnesota's survival as a
Staif Writer
ral landscape for generations, doe-
Kushne
dairy state. Others, still hoping that
ens of Holsteins graze rolling pas-
hooked up the
Minnesota and Wisconsin can find
Long Prairie, Minn.
S
cows to
a way to make their smaller, tradi-
It sure doesn't look like a dairy
to the barn for milking. At Dairy.
Delryridge'a
lional dairy farms work, look at the
farm.
ridge, 120 cows an hour file through
machines.
trend toward bigger farms with sus -
7
the stainless sled, double -sided, 24
About 120
picion — and dread. But there is no
There are no silos, no trees, no
stall milking parlor. For 18 hours a
cows an hour
question that more Minnesota
pretty farmhouse. Instmd, there are
' s
L
file through the
farmers are stripping away the idyl -
huge concrete bunkers, an office full
noors, swab udders and milk the
24 -stall parlor.
lic layers of history and reducing
of computers and cow quarters as
farm's more than 800 cows.
Teems o1 milk
dairy farting to its most basic ele--
large as warehouses on Industrial
processors
rent — milk Producing lots of
Blvd.
Forget finding a Flossie or a Betsy
work 18 hours
-
+ai
a day to milk
Al the more picturesque dairy
-
the farm's
Milk continued on page 4B
more than 000
cows. Each
• �` i
cow produces
19,000 pounds
of milk a year.
f milk
and
umammoneyi
♦
(Oki
�
� Y
76�
Staff Photos by Charles Blorgen
Dalryridge owns( James Ridgeway
Inside a packed nifting parlor, The
farm now Long Prairie produces 1.2
mllUon pounds of milk a month.
State dairy experts push expansion to raise profits
By James Walsh
farms that have dominated the ru-
And the most important numbers
the key to Minnesota's survival as a
Staif Writer
ral landscape for generations, doe-
ars 1.2 million pounds of milk a
dairy state. Others, still hoping that
ens of Holsteins graze rolling pas-
month and 19,000 pounds of milk
Minnesota and Wisconsin can find
Long Prairie, Minn.
tures, then leisurely make their way
per cow per year — more than
a way to make their smaller, tradi-
It sure doesn't look like a dairy
to the barn for milking. At Dairy.
4,000 pounds higher than the stale
lional dairy farms work, look at the
farm.
ridge, 120 cows an hour file through
average.
trend toward bigger farms with sus -
the stainless sled, double -sided, 24
picion — and dread. But there is no
There are no silos, no trees, no
stall milking parlor. For 18 hours a
"All they think here is hundred-
question that more Minnesota
pretty farmhouse. Instmd, there are
day, teams of milk processars hose
weights of milk," said James Ridge-
farmers are stripping away the idyl -
huge concrete bunkers, an office full
noors, swab udders and milk the
way, a former egg producer who
lic layers of history and reducing
of computers and cow quarters as
farm's more than 800 cows.
opened this $3 million venture a
dairy farting to its most basic ele--
large as warehouses on Industrial
year ago. "That's why they exist —
rent — milk Producing lots of
Blvd.
Forget finding a Flossie or a Betsy
to produce milk."
milk.
or a Dot here. The cows of Dairy -
Al the more picturesque dairy
ridge are known by their numbers.
To many, this factory approach is
Milk continued on page 4B
' a"c �''�'??:��� Q'"ol-w.'c 5.'� &:.�g".... NSzo'5s :�`,':'�`�'n. �U3.6"�...�! �•a6 .. ng -
P,
. g•
�^ ?k'"�•�= n�S� ° Vf6-�m0.r°l� n�N�-un S C $ S..W p-' � E NC. _O stn ".nOd�.^�°T 4
1 O.b ...0 3 � 6-'� v _ m _ -- ^ Z_s OcS 5wb w y >• v° y�9 � .^. an3 „� ^ -u>> y
o�f , �-•. GAvvZ?�.-. R3• y�=.oo�o �Y'amr'.No�.•�'o° ao.D°e m�wtir-o.. c5 G"?�n,n���o5o.-•4�^. 010 SH a -.-'
n g0_w ° 03S^^9- .7g
v
g�.�`Q°'T�'.6T^�N�w�nmao5• 3i t■
°. 0^45•m=.^ ��F2 ���gv� vaaa='�•�-.T a ic•a�,e'^ooe3`�v
Dv. <A'�0^'no= n�w'°^".^<�" w�^o gipp,. �•,�•,�o �nvE 6'�.o c�^JoZ•N^E3���sn�'�
�.L G 4-.0 ° .o•a.o Q o•^' 0 0 0 �•o,� C. ^SZT�o ,-.• n .i =. n °c - °ccs°,� '" u" ° "'•.» n _
iiF�au n°a.a, gQ^,v• o� `ri oc��yrT�25�sc.. 0^6...0 ;•°°a'^u62�o-,�3c I n�^o.c. m
�� ad ao' �°•�^o• F� nma orf?r�=S'v ° 00},3. yGaai=,� [�',10�°- avao"uu -+J
O�nW O i^w^'^ N �'�^��.1�w3o nC.�n N� a� •
^-+w ° $ a�N '" ^E ^ �nov93�°oHe 1�-3 n� �oEH2•Z.a 30°
Qc p.F 9 -��. :S 4n'a �1•o B3a S°...m wNo. - E o^A..b°
c.^5'^�c ScR cao a_o .6 b•o o �G<a.ny °'«o n 0N^,°o•�s.��3 n��•. r
r ^or ^s^ ar ri i'i^•�nCno o%»»o.M �-. �':7 IW - . Ln ::a
�11 91
52,0 o -1 $3�oaTGo n^± <.oneio� MQR n2ft 5 �Q �°c -.Ca r= arm^c6a oN ccE..n �n
22-o5n5. 6 �EG� NF•n.cr�Oc•t^ r�
• r +o ^Gmm�R "� o=ter a��"°'c �..a GvgNp• o g0 r.°.cc:- ¢R�30vb-a•�°
Gav� ° 3� C ..° G- < o m o C�_S-wQ o S.c w,•�° °'
.< ^y ^ 0.5 a: Q..•< r i'oo•< R T .: :< •�5..°n t_ Q v+-�`0
0.9 .� g.�q °� .m � pp••a m EE ^ w (i y Q. °> :< 6u O 0 •• ��Ftt n ,O n �^! E
-E
�5 ,b", o•�do• 71;'p'^o Cf;oGv r^u 0. 5.3 v. a ^m a�.-'1•�5o va°050°w' n^•�5�•°'°
.EGD „gE° oo a$�e ^e4� Pv-'S'•�g• n0: °: v°voEna o-�_'g� 5•�.°-�4 .^.P• cue
-., � d ak 6o'O �� c.^ B c a o g t � ^ o ^ S� c. ° ^ u "�`� �w'G .. 4�_ 6pp•o pn o �^n 'n
3 ��- ,00 oa�avAP T»�� ^FSO •^��'�o�N � •Eca,�' H a3��u_ �� 'a<a 3.0 s
" d o
o a a�o,n+ °=� o�,.°•3°�4 �. `Z•�••°, E�.G�a "o. ag. a�S^
°Z°^ b s° �1 0090
o �l0 493�2:m 8»Q-wnba•°• $O e'ZEo`�aiS 0.ii� 3m03c
(n om '.�.�5'•-°,o m-'m�
�^ v.7"3^^�.m w_ GQ$•er3 �'n'Z�RZa ��e0.�n °°^ a �!onni�'7' p.Z�i9 a^g•�'^PE1y^•<Tn
o � 0� �^ �o6^,no a°•rsya» �o � ^,o cpp..o"" �. S,�R'» ^ a '*� o N 9 •<c.,.n E:.w D....,g
�.° o. �,� .u� � u 9v o � m 3 o t^ e'•� E$n < a•� S;- � 6 _5 -RR 5•�' �o' -• ,n d ,`;
n v o .°. 5 • "' '. k7 <G ER .�',� -.� ,� ^ ^ E a` ° o r n Q 6 v 1
T�,o ^�v.Z ^ « °•�•a.,,`7w-.,
T� °m•^, ^av 40. °pc-. �.^"�'^�d a� ...�uR S' ,a'L'Cn o;G •5 ^°'°v�•�^C E -t- c.3vo
o 0 3^ ,u v <.ca -'_c S3 T 5c.�m°oo 4�Z. unu "a" °-.^o•_,
it°oc�nspp.. �o"u oi6o?�-•7^5$a'�O° aP^-'aa4p°
ac n«o �° o„• a n.7 C. OeiMp'��,�' r�0 ,, Ev 6n9 C. °'� E^,P•a `-• o�o' ^ 1�mE _a•'la T°=v .0
e.�r•r`'^a� y3-.� Qnoo.°°wK �d.o.«wa o<_ P^e7mao�� Mooc ,� m'eo"��� ...e_.o
r:�R �• 0^7�"-. pE 3. L�'c^1^ n C.^9�� q.+^ v r
ob a .° o� Fes.<� °nam^ mw �<1o. _. °^a u.. pT•e�.3 nun •°., $.^o .e. 0'S=^Z3 }
p° �•nrXn o. 5��^�'"e.1b ^mac' mEaa�5_: °•�m3^�m6'•� o^��-•:- g °g�«=o�noC6•o
i. o m Z.a n C.�° 0 5• Y o n E� .^. ^ o �•^ tri .Cyy G o •. o. o r7
... C.n �.<7�� conrvC ,°-. Y:rb'cc� +3•,.G y+6
o��r S.g Er 6•eo_ 6°e �'.g �A."$ 4n y�'� v
a4
a3�_�am r
�3 00.90 Fm a^aw �^'=°'"'w [s
0 oa cv� �r
�a an^�Qo �N1c ovNnm
' n �� o0 av a a o
�v nQoOd^- - nn1 C
a.
Pm �e3«war o�an /•
9 :gIC
.�3s dc? Vco�o
3 �
« b e Eyy! G
c c•o 5- 2'rsr71"�-0-
3 S.; Qo `i c n w�•p
- c.a 1p•w 1 y„ w n Q�
°.ego ^0•a
0
09
b r
�.•ri•0._ O C u 0 a p
The c
(The following information is
by Bernard I. Conlin, Extension
Animal Scientist --Dairy Manage=
ment, University of Minnesota)
The industry continues to expe-
rience dynamic changes in struc-
ture.
Productivity and herd sizes have
increased markedly. The number
of dairy farms and milk processing
plants has declined dramatically.
Nationally, Minnesota ranks
fifth in number of cows and in
milk production.
modem dairy farm families con-
tinue to strive to improve their
economic returns and enhance the
quality of family life.
Early settlers in Minnesota
brought cows with them and oxen
pulled many of their wagons.
These animals became an impor-
tant source of power for working
the fields, and supplied meat and
milk to to the people. Histon'
cally, our state's dairy industry has
flourished because of these favor-
able conditions:
-inexpensive high quality feeds
•Plentiful supply of water
•Land with limited alternatives
Melrose Beacon and Stearns -Morrison Enterprise. Dairy Section June 5 and 6, 1995 Page 6
�r tn*dustry,
an in a
to forage production typically operated by other farmers almost threefold from 1945 to Minnesota's Changing Dairy Landscape
:Desirable climate that raise crops either for their 1994, from 5,186 pounds per cow
Committed farm families larger herds or for cash markets, to 15 000 pounds, respectively.
-Positive market reputation of FEWER DAIRY HERDS Them are tremendous producuv- Year Dairy %Farms % Dairy cowsCows/ Cows! Milk
state's dairy products Of the 151,064 Minnesota dairy ity differences among herds, rang- farms marketing Grade A (1000s) herd sq mi of Ih/Cow
-Strong support infrastructure farms marketing milk in 1945, inB from less than 8,000 pounds
comprised of processors, and ser- 12,626 remain in 1994, of milk per cow to over 28,000 (1000s) milk farm land
vice and supply providers More than 80% of Minnesotappounds per cow. - 1945 151 80 — 1,660 11 34 5,186
The industry has changed dra- farms sold milk in 1945. Less The 5,800 herds enrolled in the 1955 116 70 4 1,378 12 28 6,410
matically over the years. Dairy than 15% of Minnesota farms now DHJrogram average more than
cow numbers are about a third that market milk. The average herd 18 000 pounds per cow annually. 1965 67 47 6 1,232 18 26 8,550
of the peak year, 1934. And since size has grown from l l cows in Marc than 2,000 herds produce
1945: 1945 to 49 cows r herd. pounds per cow 1975 33 28 26 884 26 18 10.119
Pe over 20,000 po
-Farms selling milk have de- Dairy farms typically market annual) 1985 22 23 47 915 41 19 11,800
clined by more than 90% most of their crops as milk; most MILK RANKS FIRST
-Herd size has increased by a of the feed they raise is fed to Milk has and continues to rank 1993 13 15 72 648 49 14 15,000
factor of 4.5 cows. Number I in generating farm in-
-Production per cow has in- Minnesota dairy cow numbers coma.
creased by a factor of 3 peaked in 1934 with 1,867,000 Milk sales have accounted quite
-The number of plants process- cows per square mile of farm land consistendv for about 15-20% of Dairy industry. Continued on next page
ing cheese and butter has declined in 1945, Minnesota now has 14
from 845 to 27. tarn income over the 1945-1993
cows per square mile. Minnesota -
Consumer tastes have shifted had about 620,000 dairy cows in Pork, com and soybeans rank
from whole, fluid milk to cheese June. 1994. second, third and fourth in income
and low-fat products. The signs of The heaviest concentration of
chane are evident as you travel generation. '
B dairy cows and farms has always T� impact of dairying goes far
the country roads of Minnesota: been a belt ranging from Houston beyond the farm. The industry di -
vacant, unpainted barns; farge, and, Fillmore counties in the ratty employs more than 39,000
open fields; and, in some°cases. Southeast to Otter Tail and Becker people in the state.
unoccupied homes. counties in the Northwest • These workers are milk produc-
Many of the once picturesque Seventy-five percent of the ers; processors; sanitarians; feed, JUNE
J Tc .
dairy farmsteads that bustled with state's milk production is in this equipment and dairy supply J �J1 L lv
activity are now devoid of people 31county Dairy Belt Only 14% providers; veterinarians; and other
rws. The surrounding land is of the state's milk is produced service providers. The direct it
north of this region, and 10% pact of the state's economy is
south. over time, the exodus mote than $3:5 billion annually.
from dairying has been more pro- Studies have shown suable im-
nounced outside of this region, re- pacts on nondairy sectors with MONTH
1 1 1
sulting in this geographic changes in the dairy sectors.
MSfion Pounds consolidation of milk production Those most affected by changes
in the state. in the industryinclude real
Producid in 1993 INCREASED estate,
PRODUCTIVITY estate, housing, whol[bar, banking, Thank You for Banking With Us
® ts. than 40.0 trade. s rvic i. and State
banking,
Production per cow has increased electric servicq, and state and local
40.0 - 79.9
lazes. r
80.0 - 149.9
150.0 - 399.9
400.0 .
A time to salute the
GOODNESS'
Famo Feeds Salutes the Dairy
Industry with q
FREE ICE
CREAM BARS
HAV E
AN
l� V BREAK
June 16th and
June 19th, 1995,
St. Martin National Bank
celebrates June Dairy Month.
Stop in for some ice cream.
�___ _ 1 LaL 11 .. .w ♦� i n m
�'eei�tivaidlL 'nnesota'
MIAl1^_$= ranks third in the U.S.
in pounds of cheese produced an-
nnnlly. The processing side of the
industry has consolidated into a
small number of large, modern
processing plants.
In the late 1980s and the 1990s.
Minnesota dairy farms make a
rapid conversion from manufactur-
ing Grade B to Grade A milk.
Seventy-two percent of the
state's milk meets the higher Grade
A sanitation/quality standards.
Only 13:0 of the milk was Grade
A in 1965. producers meeting
Grwlc A standards receive premium
prices for their milk
Dairies have also experienced
changes in the producing system,
with premiums for milk protein
and other milk quality indicators.
Heavy penalties are levied for
marketing milk with abnormal
residu._s.
Milk and dairy products have
been a traditional staple of U.S.
diets.
Consumers spend about 11% of
their food budget for dairy prod-
ucts, down form 12.4% in 1975.
Retail prices of dairy products
have risen more slowly than prices
of other food.
Consumers are purchasing less
fluid milk (247 to 219 pounds per
person since 1975), but are buying
more cheese, yogurt and numerous
specialty dairy products.
The total per capita consump-
tion is about 575 pounds of milk
equivalent per year.
FORCES OF CHANGE
Making things better is innate
to the human spirit.
Change is constant as people
strive to improve the quality of
their pmducm environment, prof-
itability, and standard of living.
Those that fail to change in a
Table 4. Shifts In Percent of U.S. Milk Production
ISw S: Dairy Situalven. MaIr n 198592.
Oary Markel tiows, vd. 55. Rep. 10. 1988.
Oarry Cutlook. Febmary 23. 1988.!
_ -
Dairy farms tend to be highly
1973
dependent on income from milk
1987
sales.
1993
Typically more than 8"o of
Farm Income
farm income is from milk sales,
Ork 10
and about 1010 from sale of cull
cows and calves. While raising
'Nsconvn
crops- provides diversification,
16.3
most of the crops are fed to the
t74
cows and marketed as milk.
152
The farm's labor manngement,
86
capital, and expertise are diversified
n.3
over many enterprises: milk pro-
t45
duction, several cropping enter-
Pm uNarra
prises, and, sometimes, other
5.8
livestock enterprises.
7.1
Minnesota dairy farms vary in
a 2
productivity, cost of producing
2.4
milk, the technology employed,
is
herd size, and the level of special-
3.8
izing.
'Nashngicn
Many are highly competitive
2.0
with those in other regions in the
26
U.S. Also many farms are at a
3.3
crossroads where the owners need
1.t
to decide whether to make some
IA.
major changes in the operations in
1 7
order to continue or to sell the
'dahn
cows. The family's life stage and
14
the presence of a younger genera-
1.7
tion desiring a dairy career are im-
f 1
portant determinants.
:�•t¢P:!�;atteityl
:STATE TOTAL MILK
RELATIVELY STEADY
'
Total milk produced annually
true. York
over this time period (1945-1993)
8.5
has varied from about 8.6 to 10.8
8o
billion pounds- The total milk
. u
produced annually in Minnesota
I6
has not changed greatly compared
1.6
to the drastic changes in cow
16
numbers and herds
Ynr,—
Minnesota produces about 6.41
•
of the national milk supply. The
2.6
national market share has dropped
1 :
from 8.3% in 1960.
Minnesota ranks fifth behind
California, Wisconsin, New York
and Pennsylvania in total milk
!•nnesca
produced-
roducedCHEESE
6.0
CHEESEIS KING
-:i.5 y
Minnesota produces about
n b e v E
2,2000 pounds of milk per person
0 3 9
in the state, or almost four times
"
the avenge consumption.
t$ ;
Most Minnesota milk is pro-
t
cessed into manufactured dairy
2 o
products. Only about 15% goes
34
for fluid use. . .
1
Minnesota is a long distance
zc 3 i:'
from major population centers.
< v,' o
'
Cheese and other hard products a .
re
u uo
`e
less costly to transport and much
$ r
less perishable.
is
The tiara sts to dis-
t �Lpopal't
�\
abil-
Tty to compete in ifi�e-Ihnd milk"
MIAl1^_$= ranks third in the U.S.
in pounds of cheese produced an-
nnnlly. The processing side of the
industry has consolidated into a
small number of large, modern
processing plants.
In the late 1980s and the 1990s.
Minnesota dairy farms make a
rapid conversion from manufactur-
ing Grade B to Grade A milk.
Seventy-two percent of the
state's milk meets the higher Grade
A sanitation/quality standards.
Only 13:0 of the milk was Grade
A in 1965. producers meeting
Grwlc A standards receive premium
prices for their milk
Dairies have also experienced
changes in the producing system,
with premiums for milk protein
and other milk quality indicators.
Heavy penalties are levied for
marketing milk with abnormal
residu._s.
Milk and dairy products have
been a traditional staple of U.S.
diets.
Consumers spend about 11% of
their food budget for dairy prod-
ucts, down form 12.4% in 1975.
Retail prices of dairy products
have risen more slowly than prices
of other food.
Consumers are purchasing less
fluid milk (247 to 219 pounds per
person since 1975), but are buying
more cheese, yogurt and numerous
specialty dairy products.
The total per capita consump-
tion is about 575 pounds of milk
equivalent per year.
FORCES OF CHANGE
Making things better is innate
to the human spirit.
Change is constant as people
strive to improve the quality of
their pmducm environment, prof-
itability, and standard of living.
Those that fail to change in a
Table 4. Shifts In Percent of U.S. Milk Production
ISw S: Dairy Situalven. MaIr n 198592.
Oary Markel tiows, vd. 55. Rep. 10. 1988.
Oarry Cutlook. Febmary 23. 1988.!
_ -
- 1960
1973
1984
1987
1991
1993
Sures omducing more:.
Farm Income
S'cwt
Ork 10
9uner S Cheese
(31000s)
'Nsconvn
144
16.3
17.4
t74
16.2
152
Carlomta6.6
86
8.7
n.3
1.2.5
t45
rf2
Pm uNarra
5.8
5.8
70
7.1
6.8
a 2
Teras
2.4
2.8
is
3.0
3.8
3.9
'Nashngicn
1.7
2.0
2.6
26
3.0
3.3
Flonda '
1.t
1.6
IA.
f.6
1 7
i 7
'dahn
1.3
14
1.6
1.7
2.0
f 1
Hoofing rhe-, awn:
true. York
9.4
8.5
8.4
8o
7.5
. u
`emcm
I6
17
1.6
1.7
16
,
Ynr,—
1 6
1.3
I.s.
2.6
1.4
1 :
91a!
O
.........
h
'Op
----------------
N
L
Come and I oin ii
700 Co -vv ®Pel
Saturday, Septo 2_,L-�
We are proud to be pait'
DAIRY
>
f
jj L V
r
long
7'n
Umn
t Our
Morris, N1 N
Barn
Diiections: South of Morris,
ffivy 9, turn Rt. on Oy. Rd. 59, v
P1go 3 miles South. Gq
01111ject. Klinker
P�A o
I Construction, Inc.
WASTE STORAGE AND FACILITY PERMITTING
SYNOPSIS OF PRESENTATION TO OTSEGO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER G. 1995
CAROLYN L. OAKLEY. P.E.. PROTECT ENGINEER WITH B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES
Waste
St®raue
and
Facility
Permittincy
LIENCH
WASTE STORAGE AND FACILITY PERMITTING
LIKE SO MANY OTHER INDUSTRIES, ANIMAL AGRICULTURE IN
MINNESOTA AND AROUND THE COUNTRY IS CHANGING. AND, AS
WITH MANY INDUSTRIES, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ARE A MAJOR
CONCERN. TODAY WE WILL EXAMINE ISSUES SURROUNDING
CONSTRUCTION OF MANURE STORAGE FACILITIES. OUR FRAME OF
REFERENCE FOR THIS DISCUSSION COMES FROM WORKING WITH
NUMEROUS DAIRY FARM FAMILIES WHO ARE CHOOSING
tiIODERNIZATION TO COMPETE IN THE CHANGING DAIRY BUSINESS.
FEED ALLEY
MINNESOTA HAS LONG ENJOYED A STRONG DAIRY TRADITION.
FAVORABLE CLIMATE AND AMPLE FOOD SUPPLIES HAVE SUPPORTED
DAIRY FARMS WHOSE PRODUCTS ARE NATIONALLY KNOWN. WHILE
DAIRYING AND MILK PROCESSING REMAIN STRONG THE NUMBER OF
DAIRY FARMS IS DECLINING WHILE HERD SIZE AND PRODUCTION
PER COW INCREASE. THESE AND OTHER CHANGES CAN BE SEEN IN
THE BRIGHT, WELL VENTILATED MODERN FREESTALL BARN.
FREESTALL
THESE MODERN FACILITIES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ECONOMIES OF
SCALE. THE FREESTALL BARN IS DESIGNED WITH A FOCUS ON COW
COMFORT. ANIMALS CAN FREELY MOVE ABOUT AND FEED AT WILL.
MILKING PARLOR
THE MODERN MILKING PARLOR IS THE KEY TO ENABLING FAMILY
FARMERS TO MAXIMIZE PRODUCTION, HIRE HELP, AND SPEND MORE
TIME WITH THEIR FAMILIES. MANY OF OUR CLIENTS ARE YOUNG
FARMERS WHO BUILD WITH THE HOPE THAT THEIR CHILDREN WILL
CONTINUE IN THE BUSINESS.
h County residents
Hogs I s � about saiery ofi big farms
:.,,ysf �1Vfinr court
,
envircnmentaorders,. = _
;study for ct �.
�. ferrn r
• A oJect
� J
abut eaC o , -:.....• . 1
M rs�
SIP a kee
,p11y <�t.,.'�`�•C�O,�: �`l�a} ,C�a...'`,a..sd �n W.�4✓
a"e •
NEWS ARTICLES
HOWEVER, CHANGE IS SELDOM WITHOUT CONTROVERSY. MANY
PEOPLE VIEW THESE LARGER OPERATIONS AS THREATENING
COMMERCIAL JUGGERNAUTS AND HAVE RAISED ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS. TODAY WE WILL EXAMINE SOME OF THE FACTS AND
HOPEFULLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS.
AdvantacFes
containment, avoiding
impacts to surface
waters
liner systems protect
ground water
. enhanced utilization
Concerns
odor
basin liner performance
ADVANTAGES
ANIMALS ARE HOUSED UNDER -ROOF, ELIMINATING PROBLEMS WITH
RUNOFF FROM OPEN FEEDLOTS CHARACTERISTIC OF OLDER FARMS.
INDEED, SOME OF THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY OFFENSIVE
FACILITIES ARE OLDER SMALL FARMS WITH INADEQUATE MANURE
HANDLING AND STORAGE FACILITIES. IN A MODERN DAIRY,
MANURE IS SCRAPED OR FLUSHED FROM THE BARN AND STORED IN
A LINED BASIN OR TANK UNTIL IT CAN BE EFFICIENTLY APPLIED TO
CROPLAND AS FERTILIZER. MANURE IS CONTAINED AND
CONTROLLED, AVOIDING IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATERS.
MODERN WASTE STORAGE BASINS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT
GROUND WATER. EXTENDED STORAGE MEANS THAT MANURE
BECOMES A RESOURCE INSTEAD OF A WASTE PRODUCT. MANURE IS
USUALLY STORED FOR 6 TO 12 MONTHS AND APPLIED TO CROPLAND
BEFORE OR AFTER HARVEST. MORE ACREAGE IS AVAILABLE TO
RECEIVE MANURE. IMMEDIATE INCORPORATION OF LIQUID
MANURE USING MODERN METHODS CONSERVES NITROGEN
CONTENT, INCREASING FERTILIZER VALUE. MANURE ALSO RETURNS
MICRO NUTRIENTS, FIBER AND ORGANIC MATTER TO THE SOIL.
THUS, MANURE UTILIZATION HELPS REBUILD TOPSOIL AND REDUCE
THE USE OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS.
CONCERNS
CONCERNS WITH LARGER LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS RELATE
PRIMARILY TO ODOR, PARTICULARLY DURING AGITATION.DAIRY
MANURE IN PARTICULAR IS GENERALLY LESS OFFENSIVE BECAUSE
OF THE FLOATING CRUST WHICH FORMS ON THE POND SURFACE.
THIS CRUST SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES ODORS. ANOTHER CONCERN
RELATES TO WASTE STORAGE POND LINER PERFORMANCE
Design and
Permitting
number of animals,
current and future
water usacre
soil conditions
liner selection
land for application
local requirements
develop site plan
DESIGN AND PERMITTING
A MODERN DAIRY FACILITY CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT
FIRST OBTAINING A PERMIT FROM THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY. THE FACILITY PERMIT SPECIFIES THE NUMBER
OF ANIMALS ALLOWED AND WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE
CONSTRUCTED INCLUDING BUILDINGS AND WASTE STORAGE
STRUCTURES. FACTORS SUCH AS ANIMAL NUMBERS AND WATER
USAGE ARE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE STORAGE CAPACITY
REQUIRED.
THE MPCA HAS ADOPTED STRINGENT STANDARDS FOR DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES. THESE STANDARDS
ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PONDS OR
LANDFILLS. MODERN WASTE STORAGE PONDS ARE A FAR CRY FROM
THE EARTHEN BASINS OF EVEN NST A FEW YEARS AGO.
SOIL BORINGS ARE MADE TO INVESTIGATE SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED WASTE STORAGE POND.
WE LOOK FOR THE PRESENCE OF BEDROCK OR SHALLOW GROUND
WATER. SAMPLES OF THE NATIVE SOILS MAY BE TESTED TO
DETERMINE IF THEY ARE SUITABLE FOR USE IN CONSTRUCTING A
CLAY LINER.
THE LOCATION AND ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR LAND APPLICATION
OF MANURE MUST BE IDENTIFIED. A COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN
SHOWING EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND FINAL GRADING CAN THEN
BE DEVELOPED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
c
�y1
s
`
I _
V I
I
I
1 O
Y
I I
i 1 �• I ' I
.I I ■s
set
lllllr, 1 IIl ll iV 1 I
SITE PLAN I
ai THIS PLAN SHOWS EXISTING ROADS AND FUTURE ACCESS.
of DRALNAGL• PATTERNS AND THE LOCATION OF THF. NEW FREE•STALL
e BARN. MILKING PARLOR COMPLEX, AND WASTE STORAGE POND.
CROSS SECTIONS AND DETAILS FOR THE POND ARE ALSO PROVIDED
CONCRETE RAMPS ARE CONSTRUCTED TO PRO'T'ECT THE POND LINER
DURING AGITATION. WE ALSO TYPICALLY INCLUDE AN ESTIMATE
OF EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ANIS ATTEMPT TO BALANCE CUT TO
FILL.
�C04s
TYPICAL CLAY LINER
A TYPICAL CLAY LINER MUST BE AT LEAST 2 FEET THICK. IT MUST
BE CONSTRUCTED OF CLAY SOILS WHICH MEET SPECIFIC CRITERIA
WITH REGARD TO PLASTICITY AND GRAIN SIZE. CLAY IS PLACED IN
6" LIFTS. EACH LIFT SHOULD BE SLIGHTLY SCARIFIED PRIOR TO
APPLYING THE NEXT LIFT. THIS IS DONE TO ASSURE BETTER
BONDING BETWEEN LIFTS.
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS GENERALLY REQUIRE THAT THE
CLAY BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF MAXIMUM ATTAINABLE DENSITY.
MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR A PARTICULAR SOIL IS DETERMINED IN THE
LABORATORY FOR COMPARISON WITH RESULTS ACHIEVED IN THE
FIELD.
FOR A GIVEN SOIL, THIS MAXIMUM DENSITY OCCURS AT AN
"OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT" OR OMC MOISTURE CONTENT AT
MOLDING IS ALSO IMPORTANT. COMPACTION SHOULD OCCUR ON
THE "WET SIDE", ABOVE THE OPTIMUM MOISTURE. .
THE OBJECTIVE OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS IS TO ACHIEVE A VERY
LOW PERMEABILITY OR HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WITHIN THE
COMPACTED SOIL MASS. TYPICALLY THIS DESIGN PERMEABILITY IS
Ix 10(-7) cm/sec. IN A MOMENT WE WILL EXAMINE WHAT THAT
MEANS.
MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND STUDY INDICATE THAT IF THESE
SPECIFICATIONS ARE FOLLOWED THE FINISHED CLAY LINER WILL BE
AN EFFECTIVE HYDRAULIC BARRIER. OUR OWN EXPERIENCE IN THE
FIELD HAS SHOWN THAT INDEED WHEN THESE SPECIFICATIONS ARE
FOLLOWED THE DESIRED LOW PERMEABILITY IS ACHIEVED.
I
allo\\able leakaLe rate
500 gallons/acre-day
h\ draulic conductiN its
1 x 10-7 cm/sec
LEAKAGE RATE
BUT WHAT DOES lx 10(-7) cm/sec MEAN ANYWAY? SOME MAY KNOW
THAT THE ALLOWABLE LEAKAGE RATE FOR CLAY -LINED BASINS IS
500 GALLONS PER ACRE PER DAY. I HAVE HEARD THIS FIGURE
TOSSED OUT AS A CRITICISM OF CLAY -LINERS. BUT LETS TAKE A
MOMENT TO SEE WHAT THESE NUMBERS MEAN. THE 500 G/A-D IS A
CALCULATED LEAKAGE RATE BASED UPON A PERMEABILITY OF lx
10(-7) cm/sec. THE CALCULATION ASSUMES THAT THE LINER WILL BE
SUBJECT TO A CONSTANT MAXIMUM HEAD ... THAT IS, THE POND IS
ALWAYS FULL.
THE KEY TO THIS IS PERMEABILITY. QUITE OFTEN IN THE FIELD
WHEN WE TEST A FINISHED LINER WE WILL SEE PERMEABILITY OF
LESS THAN lx 10(-7) cm/sec. PERMEABILITY ON THE ORDER OF 10(-8)
cm/sec ARE NOT UNCOMMON. THIS IS A FULL ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
SLOWER.
WHILE THESE FIGURES ARE THEORETICAL THEY GIVE US SOME IDEA
OF THE VERY SLOW RATE OF SEEPAGE THROUGH A PROPERLY
CONSTRUCTED CLAY LINER. BUT LET US CONSIDER ONE OTHER
WAY OF LOOKING AT THE 500 G/A-D LEAKAGE RATE. THE AVERAGE
AMERICAN USES ABOUT 100 GALLONS OF WATER EACH DAY FOR
WASHING, SANITARY, AND OTHER PURPOSES. IN RURAL AREAS
MOST OF THIS WATER IS DISCHARGED TO A SEPTIC TANK AND DRAIN
FIELD. THUS, A FAMILY OF 5 WOULD DISCHARGE A COMPARABLE
VOLUME OF LIQUID EACH DAY.
5
U 4
w
O
CL
°- 3
LL
O
w
0 2
r
z
w
U 1
rr
w
0-
u
I
39
LINERS
0
z
-�
~Q
w
x
U
a- -�
0
w -
0—
0
O
' Y aSs;�S�
qtr :: P r f? 7�..3 y t,yKl ! f;. i t « .,.7�i.
.. t;
10(-10)
10(-9) 10(-8)
10(-7) 10(
MEAN LINER PERMEABILITY (cm/sec)
-6)
MEAN PERMEABILITY
THIS PRESENTS RESULTS OF TESTING ON 39 CLAY LINER PROJECTS.
THE MEAN PERMEABILITY FOR THESE PROJECTS FELL WELL BELOW
THE DESIGN STANDARD FOR A MAJORITY OF CASES, WITH OVERALL.
MEAN LINER PERMEABILITY BELOW Ix 10(-8) cm/sec
w
J
p 2
2
LL t
O
y
PROJECT CCC I
10(-10) 10(-B) 10(-8) 10(-7) 10(-8)
PERMEABILITY (Kn) — cm/sec
GOOD CONTROL
30
w
d 20
u- 10
O
3°
(PROJECT LLL
o f I IF S Kri7.irr 11 !
to( -10) 10(-9) 10(-8) 10(-7) 10(-8)
PERMEABILITY (Kn) — cm/sec
POOR CONTROL
EFFECTS OF QUALITY CONTROL
HERE WE SEE EFFECT OF QUALITY CONTROL ON THE FINISHED
LINER. THE PROJECT WITH GOOD CONTROL CONSISTENTLY
EXHIBITED THE DESIRED LOW PERMEABILITY, WHEREAS ABOUT
HALF THE SAMPLES FROM THE PROJECT WITH POOR CONTROL DID
NOT MEET SPECIFICATIONS.
Vl��:/�,u
SEP 1 8 X995
PRO AC CROP CONSULTANTS, INC.
1926 East Hiahview Drive, Sauk Rapids, MN 56379-2631
September 15, 1995
Mr. Carl Swenson
Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Mr. Swenson:
I am writing in support of Jim, Mark and Greg LeFebvre's (Lef-Co Farm, Inc.) request for an
expansion of their dairy operation.
I have worked as an advisor for the LeFebvre's for the past 15 years, assisting them with crop
production decisions and developing management plans to guide them toward environmentally
responsible, economical crop production. I have always found them to be sensitive and aware of
the potential for pollution caused by farm runoff.
For the past four years, we have been implementing a system of no -till farming which leaves all
the previous year's crop residue on the soil surface. This large amount of decaying plant residue
acts as a very effective filter and erosion/runoff control measure. Applications of commercial
fertilizer and animal manure stay where they are applied rather than running down the slope into a
nearby water source.
The Lef-Co Farm proposal has been well -conceived within the limitations of distance from their
current location and available land mass. There is no doubt in my mind as to their ability to
properly manage livestock waste and limit the potential for pollution. The additional economic
benefits (from wages, building materials, etc.) to the community and surrounding area is an added
bonus that will have long term paybacks. Your support of this local business and recommendation
to the city council for approval of their expansion plan will allow the business to flourish and
continue to provide resources to the community.
Please read this letter into the record at the continuation of the public hearing on September 20,
1995.
Sincerely,
" L
a
Rick Gilbertson
President, Pro Ag Crop Consultants, Inc.
cc: Mark LeFebvre, Lef-Co Farm, Inc.
w.J.,;. C..- O... silo {Ja A~irr,lhiian
H1.W AN
1 Aa�n ,V
orirr�r`
Carl Swenson
Chairman, Planning and Zoning
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Ave. \1
Otsego, MN 55330
Dear Chairman Swenson,
FORS GEAREA
Ch.a. mber of �_J011 M421 ce
September 10 1995
As you know, there is an item under discussion before your city in regards to the approval of Lef-Co
Farms, Inc. to make changes to their farming operation. The Lefebvres have asked that we provide input
to your decision making process as you review their final plans. Our input is provided as fellow Rogers
Area Chamber of Commerce members.
Our perspective is that this family has shown a continued and vital interest in :heir community beyond the
confines of their dairy farm. There are numerous local and state groups and community events in which
the family supports and participates. In addition, the family has opened up their farm operation to state,
national, and international visitors to see their modern farming operation.
It appears that their proposed changes are part of a very thoughtful process undertaken by the Lefebvre
family to grow with the needs of their family business and changing business climate. In our discussions
with the Lefebvre family, it further appears that they cooperated closely with the regulatory and various
government bodies to ensure that this was a smooth process and considerate of all aspects including their
local environment and community.
We are all aware that there is constant change in our communities. This family farm is making changes
that they feel are sound from a community, environmental and financial sense. In summary, they are very
.good -citizens and provide an example of community leadership for us all. We would strongly urge you to
Y
Sept 20, 1995
TO: Planning Commission,
RE: Lef-Co Conditional Use Permit
In doing further checking over the past 2 weeks, I have definitely come
to the conclusion that this proposed Lef-Co Corporate Commercial Feedlot
should not be allowed to be put in the city of Otsego, directly across
from and next to residential homes. I would like to site information to
reference Section #4, Item 20-4-2 #F, #'s 2, 3, 4. The information
below pertains to these items:
#2: non -compatibility: does not fit in with residential homes.
#3: performance standards: daily increased noise from semi -trucks,
milk trucks, tractors with feed.
#4: effects: disrubtion of residential area, peace & quiet, rodents
After visits and phone calls to numerous farmers, farms, cities etc.
this is the information that has been gathered.
Sept 16, 1995: Evergreen Acres by Paynesville, MN is under construction
for a Commercial Feedlot. The feedlot is in a very remote location with
the closest neighbors being 1 1/2 miles away. There will be a strong
odor from the agitation of the pit and also an odor on a daily basis from
the feed being handled �! When asked if this farmer would put
this operation directly across the street from a residential area, his
response was: "To put this 250' or a 1,000' away from a neighbor, and
speaking as a farmer, is absolutely wrong". This farmer attended a 2 -
day seminar in Wisconsin sponsored by Geranian (?-sp.) Dairy Equipment Co
and talked about where to build awhere NOT to build.
Sept 16, 1995: Joe Worms farm by Greenwald, MN is a family farm out in
a very remote country setting. He has a feedlot with 490 cows. This is
a 24hr operation with 3 shifts. This farm has fermented feed that stinks.
He receives one (1) semi -truck load of feed every other day. His own
home is about 1000' feet away from the barn and pit. The nearest
neighbor is about 1/4 mile away & it's another farm. Residential is 2+
miles away The pit is not fenced. A comment from Joe Worms:
"I like to be honest and not talk bad about another farmer, but putting
an operation like this across from a resident is to close and if I was a
resident, I would fight it too. I don't know of any operation like this
close to residential homes. If I was a resident I wouldn't live next to
one."
Sept 16, 1995: Duane Botzek of Botzek Dairy, Foley, MN has a 332 x 94
main barn and a 2 acre liquid lagoon (separates the liquid from the
solids) He runs about 600 acres. Has a 24 hr. operation and 3 shifts.
Noise on a daily basis is the tractors with feed, trucks with feed, milk
truck, semi -truck every other day hauling feed. His chopped hay creates
a dust when loaded and moved to feed the cows. The fermented feed has a
bitter smell & stinks, but the haylage has a worse smell. Has had rats
(rodents) 2 times and each time has used poison to be rid of them. Has
flies in barn and dry cow area. He is about 1000' + away from his own
home, 1/4 mile from another farm and 1 mile to a residential home. There
is a problem with the smell of empting the pit and agitation. In 10 yrs.
he feels he needs to double the size of his operation to stay in the dairy
n r _ r - i- 4 _ _ -, .- A i- h i .-. 1..-. +- I- - ..... - - - i- 4 -- 4 - -- 4 +- 1-. } ....-, h - r- 1 n ...., A -, —
the line because of the city moving out on him. (Foley is a sleeping
bedroom city to St. Cloud) He expects he'll have to move his operation in
10 yrs. if he is to grow. (TZ , David Botzek has made the
statement a few days earlier in a phone conversation that there are days
he wishes he would had put this operation in western So. Dakota. (Submit
signed copy of the interview for file)
Sept. 17, 1995: Taylor Farms, Forrest Lake, MN (Mr. Dan Taylor) has
been in operation 5-6 yrs with 4 people (,Wu 3,000 acres. No
residents around for miles, but a 1/2+ is another farm. The everyday
feeding of cattle is where the bitter stink and smell come from. This
is a 24 hr. operation. They would NEVER locate this operation close to
any residents and the farmer did invite Lef-Co farms to give them a call.
They would be willing to share of how their operation is going and how it
has effected them.
Sept 18, 1995: Contacted 2 creameries: Land -O -Lakes & Mid-America:
their comments were basically the same: Doesn't sound like a good place
or very conducive to put an new expanded Dairy Operation in a location by
residents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On the MPCA:
News article from the Crow River News: Frankfort Township
(Submit copy)
Sept 19, 1995: MPCA Office: Paul Trapp - Are pits required to be
fenced? Paul responded "NO" . When asked how does one obtain a
Certificate of Compliance from the MPCA he stated that the MPCA relies
on the farmer to just fill out a forry\and mail it into the MPCA office
for review before he gets the certificate. They are short staffed, so
no one checks this out - they Just rely on the farmer to be correct.
This is all done thru the mail. There are no guarantees!
d 0
fi�w 5f 3 11'�
(2r,�
i LEF-CO: Main Barn: 94 x 386
Calf Barn: 48 x 160
Pit Size 350 x 150 x 1
Cows: 360
Heafers : 40
Calves. 40
Main Barn 3 X
-
Calf Barn
DA) eN
Pit Or
Cows yC1D
_FOL -y. NA)
Heaf er s
91ag- 7-7&:5
Calves
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM ACRES NEEDED TO OPERATE THIS FEEDLOT?
(include: feed storage, bldgs, pit, unfarmable land surrounding
this feedlot
4� &OD aeyZ
IS THIS A 24 HR. OPERATION? Z,
NOISE: lva&6�k d
FEED: Type:
Storage:
I
Fermented: Mixture of hops etc.?
CsT'�'K Trucked in how ma tim RTLIL s a day?
Rodents? MiCce?
WATER: How much used daily?
1. Cows drink?
3. Wash down?
Rainwater?
Sanitation?
hQ ���Srn;au_)
Semi -Trucks? k_
Azze (0 4,e-�
2. Cooling Milk
Seperate restroom facilities? 4_1
Seperate septic tank?
FLY PROBLEM:
REMOTE FEEDLOT LOCATION: How far away from own home?
Would you be any closer to the pit?Y250' away ? Why? c
re -
CW -A-1— -2041 ,��; ��•�-���s�
How close are nearest neighbors? /10 4�4)
PIT: How much manure does it hold? ZI A million gallons? ^/
How long to crust over?
AGITATION: How often?
How long does it take? 1 ��
Odor? �w
How long to empty pit?
PIT FENCED:
DO YOU HAUL DRY MANURE?
IS MANURE INJECTED INTO SOIL? �� 1 i✓YU �,� ��/- ta(-
�,U(/Y1,
BEDDING FROM OTHER COWS: MANURE: Where does it go?-Jaj—
DRY COWS: �� 3 v)
EXPANSION PLANS: 5 yrs? 10 yrs? 15 yrs?
or r�aulin
EM ENCY SAFETY SYSTEM INSTALLED ,& IF SO, WHA? WHERE? HOW?
fYl0
J� 4
MV�-P�' -"'nD TA6yyx� - JLeeo-n��4 Aamr
Q L 1
Frankfort interested
t iuildingvacanTor s.of operation.
The Frankfort Town Board dis-
cussed whether a vacant building on
MacIver Avenue might be suitable
for relocation of the municipal
building.
The board also discussed concerns
about operations violations at
Omann Brothers Inc., appointed two
new planning commissioners and
discussed weed enforcement. lace
This and other action took p
at the Monday, Aug. 21, meeting.
about parking availability and how
much it would cost to renovate the
interior of the building into a mu-
nicipal facility.
All but one board member tto>�e
the building Monday; Aug
issue is on the agenda for the board
meeting and a decision whether or
dot to offer to buy the building may
be decided then.
. OMANNS
Resident Glen Daleiden ap-
hed the board wondering if
BUILDING pr
In a survey recently returned to an
town staff, residents indicated they th
were interested in the township pos- Pe
sibly acquiring an existing building In
for use as a municipal building.
The only problem is the limited s
availability of such buildings, so PI
when the town was notified of an si
available building at the old s
pumpco facility on MacIver (north
of Hwy. 241), the issue was placed
on the agenda for discussion.
The board and town ws and staff dis-
cussed some of the pr
s of
whether to locate in the existing
building.
For example, it was noted such a
relocation would save the town a
considerable amount of money.
Also, this specific building offers a�
good location.
Some of the cons mentioned in-
cluded the fact that the building
probably would not be suitable for
relocation of the town maintenance
facility. There were also concerns
pro
yang was being done regarding
e enforcement of a conditional for Omann Brothers
rmit (CUP)
C. on Hwy. 241.
He said a fence that was put up as
Greening was located in the wrong
ace and in fact does not screen th
te. He also asked about live i
ewer system for poeop g
the pit.
%JOV sai
noise and hours
PLANNERS
Clerk Sharry Berntng reported
there were three vacancies on the
planning commission and that two
applications had been received to fill
the empty seats.
She said both persons interested
had previously applied for positions
and were asked to be considered
again. The board discused whether
residents even saw the notices of the
vacancies in this paper.
Board member Thomas Hagerty
said he believed the two applicants
should be appointed if they are will-
ing to serve.
The board then approved a motion
e appointing. Steven Hensel and Dave
Dayon to the two three-year vacan-
cies planning commission.
n cies on the
The consensus was also to re-adver-
d tise for the third vacancy.
le planners sh(
pending a lot of
lan.
Hagerty said
available forthe
12, meetings. He
posed to the con
10 parcel per act
opposed to cluste
per -40 parcel per
Hagerty said h
Tuesday, Sept.
commission has
from him.
It was also I
members availat
next commissio
Sept. 5, to answ
commission has
Attorney William o0
he would follow up on the coni-
plaints
in
JOINT MEET
and recommended comparing
what is allowed
gernin said the planning COM -
Tuesday,
he complaints with
the CUP.
has
mission plans to meet
P ' 5, and then every Tuesday in
Daleiden said the company \Set
been following MinnesotaCA)e
tember continue tplan. work on
not
lution Control Agency (
said his complaints
town cmprehensiveto
To this point, the board has nei-
denied planning
guidelines and
about such violations over the yeas
they acc ted nor
P
commission recommendations to
have not been recognt�•
and
change comprehensive plan land -use
Goodrich suggested the times
dates of the violations be written
es.
Kerning said the commission is
and that if he had a listing of com-
he would make sure a judge
requesting to meet with the board to
a consensus on what direction
plaints,
' d them He said this would
get
In other actio
board.
DISCUSSI
ment. Goodrici
developments t
weed concern.
put weed cont;
agreement in tl
CONCLU-
nance with th
and Otsego ar,
fort at this tir.
APPRO`
1995 Chevro
Gould Chevr,
Frank
town
receive - The Fran
� _ �� 1?V Supervisors
one townsh
starr on the F
Planning ar
FTMAhools is
SC
This
Individual'
brief sumr.
e the comm"
aw ne..year four tions he
The junior high is featuring fo serving or
' wel- Th ]
_ _� ...►.a c,.mrr1P.T`_1 IS Albertville Primary also is are seventh -
___3 _.. �A new teachers. They Deadli
,% � / � % /
r/
�� %fit^, � ��D-C� .{�tJ Ll C� �r�'-�.�c.-t �ti
�.�.�L.f a ��i'uL/ L�� ��-a.. L�G' �?.,{� �
�,
.Q -u. all
4
toe
I b
�;�.r. •�x�.�__ _... ~'• Int/E% L �,U p S � � S
r1• Ziti • , �� t •L/•y,• ••r •'r • •'l .• t►'I Ii Jill �.
OP' f •1•I "�7 .VC G� , �' .T"o►.r •• \•s44ILaU
i^ „C
♦ �r �_ -
VIP dWO.'l
IV
• .-..:
J.�,t. `kl`+7_'yJ. �� !I'� �'\ ► . 7j2' ..a`. :,a ... �\_'w�►lt}r
'�' �.�r=�"�j, ;.:;.,5 ,�4 �' """,••, ,�, s'� v ' ' `\tip
16
1 i
w ~►'i"ate', a:Mt �_ •... i i , � t : (j �: .' i ,'. \ •,. -.
N \ .
O1
roablt- brand
Fax Transmittal Memo
7b —S u ch')
^ypfi a C'i-ry 4AL 1
eauon
X* %"A
L4
\ ` OS -,7-'S Telephone N
Comments
co rc, rn e
'�\ease. �.c.►cL
�Y'Ovr � QST
No, of pages Today~ Date
From
company
Location Dept. Ch ergo
Fax # Teleohcne A
original F1 Destroy Aeturn
Dispashion,
Time
11 Call for piokup
Sept 20, 1995
TOt Planning Committee, fY1 ayD2 �+{esK.s� QduYVa:%L
REs Lef-Co Conditional use Permit
When we came to the city for instruction as what we needed to
do to oppose the proposed commercial feedlot, We were told to
look at Section 20-4-2.F of trio:zoning ordinance. There are
seven (7) points to address. At the last planning meeting
(9/6/95) I spoke to the fact of property values would have a
negative impact. It was now necessary to find facts.
I found this to be a real challenge because I had a hard time
finding any farmer that would build that close to residential
property. But I did find some examples. The examples I
found were not tmrmers, but corporation. Carolyn Oakley,
Lef-Co's protect engineer keeps talking about the Lefabvres
as being family farmers. I hope she is correct, because
every farmer I talked to in the last 6 weeks said they would
never do this in the city limits or to their neighbors.
Bob Kirmis, consultant to Otsego, stated there is a 300
cattle feedlot in Windom. This was checked out: It is
called Caldwell Packing Co - which is a holding facility for
cattle, in one day and out the next to be processed. This
used to be an old 'sale barn' for cattle many years ago_
This is NOT in the city, but on the edge of town in a
commercially zoned district. 'There is a home 1/2 mile away,
a trucking company next door, 1lnd residentially zoned land
directly behind the packing cozppppany. The land is also
undeveloped, no developer can be found who wants to invest In
property that would be difficult to sell. (Introduce letter
of home across the street)
(Introduce Earl Larson letter, pictures, home that is vacant
for 5 yrs. - unable to sell)
�E PNat n d D a M a. - i 5 s'�k+
B submit this letter for t e
I
a R_ Hallan
9 Packard Ave N.E.
Otsego, MN 55330
Co Py ?I e ase-
" N C. o.-vSu 1.4 w •.4 L r e j�- o r;
record. Cu i— : 4-,- 1 +.
dclat4pre.q
r-41)ptaljaI Setuccei
LOIE GRANDPREY, MSA
APPRAISER
September 20, 1995
Carol Holland
ME Design
Rogers, MN
RE: RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY - COMMERCI4L FEED LOTS
1450N fMy60&71--Box 91
WINDOM, MINNESOTA 56101
BUSINESS 507-831--2290
RESIDENCE 507831-3963
FAX 507-831- 5357
This letter is a follow up of our telephone conversation today
regarding the affect on value of residential property adjacent to
commercial feed lots.
Caldwell Packing Company is located just outside of the Windom city
limits. They have a holding facility for livestock adjacent to the
Packing plant. A house across the street from the plant was recently
sold by Clark Properties of Windom for $26,750. I would estimate that
if the same house was in the city of Windom that it would have sold
for approximately $35,000 - $40,000. The buyer in this sale was
Caldwell Packing Company.
This house is a three bedroom ranch style house without a basement or
garage. The water supply comes from Caldwell Packing Company, the home
has a private septic system. The property was on the market for
approximately six months and was showed about six times.
In my opinion the house was difficult to sell because of the location
close to the packing plant and livestock holding lot and if it had not
been sold to Caldwell Packing Company that it would still be on the
market or would have been sold for a lower price.
S cer
1V �/
L i.e Grandpre MSA
Certified Gene\tal eal Property Appraiser
Minnesota ID # 400 130
119
REALTOR"
RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL - AGRICULTURAL
Tart Larson was Kandiych= Coun�y
Commissioner from 1970-1994.
7,~17,
a i
7,
.
'G,� �(I
�lil.lii�- i✓ i b `.. �'r � •mfr'
_ � ►
1 ,
Tart Larson was Kandiych= Coun�y
Commissioner from 1970-1994.
7,~17,
a i
,�, y � � _.•yam , r'..
Z)
w������~w�
`
9/20/95
TO: THE OTSEGO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEAN BUMGARDNER
15857 70TH ST. NE
ELK RIVER, MN 55330
I OPPOSE THE PRESENT REQUEST MADE ON BEHALF OF THE LEF-CO
FARMS INC. ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL FEEDLOT ON THE LAND SOUTH OF CTY
RD. 37 AND EAST OF PACKARD AVE.
I FEEL THIS WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH SECTION 20-4-2 (POINT
4) AS IT WOULD ATTRACT FLIES AND CREATE AN UNPLEASANT ODOR
TO THOSE DIRECTLY AROUND IT WHO HAVE HOMES IN A RESIDENTIAL
ZONED AREA.
BOTH THE FLIES AND THE ODOR WOULD BE A NUISANCE AND LESSEN
ONES APPRECIATION AND ENJOYMENT OF THEIR LIFE IN THE CITY OF
OTSEGO AND F THE AREA PROPOSED.
-/���__-_-----
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO PUT ON FILE,
JEAN BUMGARDNER
<; SYN:,. '-��-
�,,/IINNESOTA AGRICULTURAL
STATISTICS SERVICE
U.S. Dep,:rt»t✓nt of Agriculture in coopera:ion wirl,
t �e..u:errata Ddsarrnnente'ASrrie:drur v
September ?0, 1995
Deur lir. Ga't;riei Davis:
the 'flowing ite:tns in response to your phone call about the nurnber of farms in
Minnesota.
1) News role, se for nrr:.'c r of farms in Nlinnesota on June 1, 1995.
i«urlber of far, -r3 riom 198;3-1994 from the 1995 Minnesota ALAcul:uzl Statistics.
-)'Number of farms by county for 1993 and 1994 from the 1995 14finnesota Agricultural
Statistics.
You will notice the nurnber of farms in Minnesota has, been declinhic, at a rate of about 1000 per
ear for :he last tlyears. The estimate of lapid in farms has declined from 310.4 million
acres to 29.5 million acres over the same time period.
Several factors should be considered when evaluating these data.
1) -%'lost of The decline in land in farms has come from urban expansion.
?) The decline in land in farms is relatively small when you consider it occurred over a thirteen
car period. During this period land in some northern areas of the state was moved from non-
a�,ricuitural land use into agricultural production. This movement offset some of the ad cultural
land around urban area that was removed from agricultural production by urban expansion.
(A --r the -hirteen year period land in farms has remained relatively stable.
3) The decline in farming operations does not necessarily lma:l less agricultural production,
since Laal in r- , is has declined at a smaller rate than dlle decline in nun-,rer of .farming
+) : � number of reasons influence the decline in number of farming operations. The number of
!:u-nlin_g operations will show a decline when:
0Atar.-Z.- r il;'a or di: s nil tllt, laliCl 1S I'Ci1tCC1 or sold w 381 Qx1Sti11f lalmlil;g Cper,[lt�:l.
C)) i:'.iSTii.!` 01-1E'.ri11ionS lui-Il I?i1Lrt^2m11175 I. �CVI!Oilli': 11r tJ111:r ri:a,sons.
CIT �..2'_nd i:, r1- 1 :�rlculraral use ci h C private ' d i C:4Sil lllil ' i:Cl i.
to\':a 1T��t 1 C tt� .r t 'ai QT tit.: O�Mr: ( 1„
d) i Inn nro,;iuctlon cealsizs due: TO poor n1ar.::_c' il:rit. in tlliti s wativn thi .Lmd gcCnerally
calf,..-' production.
Dai I
. D - - s - Pau e 2
Furminiz is ii bu-Hnmss and tal'ted and ended fcr the same basic reas�)ns
diat !;o vd-=m ai,, - other bus; ness.
I hop- i'lis: provides you -with Sonic b--ck-=:-rot;nd on this If you. 11 -ave additional Que,,-Oon.,
pl,,ms� call me at 21905-+397.
Sincerely,
George H. Rowse
Deputy State Statistician
I � �
z ILN�TESOTA AG1QJCT�-L T •r'?A.L
STATISTICS
NLN and U.S. )Depts. of .fi r ct1!u:
'2
r r�� (mow0 BOX i0 3, Stl,.•�.:'aLd. 1 -Ci —5."I 77
eleased. U LTL 1 21.3, 199;
The num',er of Mir=cso:a farms Ll is year is estima.ed
.t 17,�'CO, up 2,C(."O from 1991, according to t1a
N un.,,b;:r of 1'ar--.ns
iY'mesota :�griculraral Statistics Servica. Tris
e4 T. 10, 40
L_cr„wse is due to a change in the farm deti:ution what
includes places with 5 or more horses, except horsesin
boardi-ig stables and racetracks. Under the old
90 —
A efinition Horse or?y fare -is were excluded.
83 —
Minnesota's total farmland at 29.8 million acres is up
35 -.� --
1G0,000 acres from last year because or the change in
definition farm..
84
of a
The average farm size is 343 acres down 6 acr...s -
so - ' '
I
from last Y%=.
87 ( 89 I 91 93
E6 83 90 92 94
Number of farms by sales groups in Minnesota showed farm numbers in the S1,000-59,999 croup at
35,000 up 5,0010 from 1994. Nuinbers in the $10,000-$99,999 group at 34,000 farms remained th'a
s&=. Fain numbers in the 5100,000 -plus ;roup dropped
3,000 to 18,000.
LS. IrIG I IGHTS:
The number of farms in the U.S. Ln 1995 is est:natzd at 2.07 million, up less than half a perc:nt
from 1994.
Total land in .ailiiorl ac,- s
�s, kt:�._cha �.�gLa raom last yr.ai.
The av,.ra,:;e faun size decreased from 471 acres in 1994 to 469 in 1995.
iJtirn.?t S TCrL: c i:umber of farms and laind in firms refer to June 1. A farm, iS deflin%%d 3a "iCl
establislinacn t :rom'tTio11 :51.000 or more of za.icul ural products .wz r.- Sold or WOu!'!
Sold duriathe ;'Par."
i .kqH NW,16ERS
^.� ruT�er a farr5 :r ^^ir�r;,so- NUMBER OF FARMS, AVERAGE SIZE. AND LAND
';;ned 2,00�0 .o :5 r;^, tjle TN FARMS: MINNESOTA, 1983.94 1I
-_r•? Yiara ro = _r; 4n c,rT
~ S c t'�_�n
Yaar
37.500
Number c4
Farms
1 90
Land inI
Faris
S8.50Q
Avg. Si-:
of --ar'ns
IY•%
32.000
MiC'?j�3". and
20.000
_c ?2
:rrt^��
"-13.530
23.500
Kivu
__Z.:J,/
JO. 'vJ
?yi
1•
32.030
21.070
iii:C�,:tS i'i 1:ST. : , J'''li.
:���
:7.Q`v
,"••} ';'�
_"
is25
.C'QG
..1c7
:2.030
Statas ,1 ,:."s•: ttids eS*iT t --- d 2t
:: 8
:2.G1C
30.000
2,0 0,410, dJwn '_,I fry.,, :=9
:953
9c. ON
30.000
3:3
19ti0
33.C:3C
30.000
.37
ictal land in U.S. rarwa for 12!'14,, s
1991
68' CIO
30.600
?:1
1:93
03. NO
29.303
;;39
a;S ^i11 3n aeras. do i, n fr.n the Gia
1.93
37.00
29,70)
2T1
;1 lcn ce^ "1 _ 1rY lr. "cr^5 ~5
i
^.
5.CC�
�� '^•'
:�
-'.,er•f yv:r Si% -z r:schir� . s
A 'arm, is ily
?s:a5i1$,,- n. `rJ1l
wr.iCn f:,
Q or 11p,^Q -
rCG�C 2iy.. .,-:Cr'. �.t rlir.,r', !C'"ES irl i7�y•
e3ricu'.Jra:
FrccuCLs �'.'? so=d
CP would /i.!YIS31ly
.�.: S'+:
Curing
th-,
yg.r.
NUMBER OF FARMS: BY SALES CLASS,
MINNESOTA, 1989.94
Sales Class
S1,CGC• 510,000- I $100,000
Year 9.999 99.999 8 ever
2 -2217 01-11-� i Nl:�' =5
�
Is. COO
37.500
17.5`0
1 90
:2.000
S8.50Q
;B.�JO
IY•%
32.000
33.000
20.000
_c ?2
3'.000
"-13.530
23.500
M,-7.303
34."130
z2.:00
'_994
30.003
32.030
21.070
2 -2217 01-11-� i Nl:�' =5
�
F
Y
IY•%
vz
1130 1391 1992 19-23 1994
MINNESOTA FARM NUMBERS, AVERAGE FAMM SIZE, AND TOTAL LAND Iii FA i IS, 1993 AIND 1991
Goanty Averace T tal L3n�
and t;umb::� of Fars Farm Size Ir Earns
1i str' _t , cg3 ' .;9 , 1993 1574 5- -
iy
6!:�r •''gin
f :±
J:n
4r.
Li
L»2.'^0
'12, C'u3
1.-990_i3
?.7
1.1W 000
1.'37. 114
Ke.1 I:✓e
/.''1
(J]
_
-11
Gi? Jai
gni li
673,'C -O
1r r7
3.::0
?. ; ]
6:3
_: S
b,114,;;J0
5.1:° �-j0
'QIL�Z:-7ri
_']
""
7-,
5
':C
G
273,11 :0
Ce=?
•:.Q
220.
1
.-O
4:0
'J5
30,1
149.:,00
143.CJQ
Jv2
48,"QQ
148.00
Vic::-,,- ,r;
X30
22)
-n3
5 s
!?e C. ':n_ Nccvs
2"
%_)
2.7:Q�:'�
J
V.vJQ
Ccek
20
10
100
200
2.000
2.COQ
Lake
.0
--J
120
120
5.000
6,11^0
St. Louis
�,�
S20
��
�c5
217.'-0
217,rll0
5-7
243.Cv0
25MOO
8;i0
4Z2
4:3
34. ...No
as
1.170
1.140
^72
279
-12.!,00
3:3.�?C0
�rnt
570
;,o0
533
553
3io. 1100
3Is. O -Q
Lac C:i Rar:e
1.uiO
�9t7
4?2
440
43E.CG4
':F,C'00
G ler -ail
3.030
2. �:']
325
3.5
. 7. 00
°37. GJ0
="e
'
0
; 4-.
S*rv`rs
633
0
Us
2'3
33i.�0CJ
? 1.?J
�N ft
?.0
930
=6 7
4 ?
n
425,OOQ
�n n
,[5,v00
Tr3ver5e
4,Q
440
743
337,000
337.000
n5?O
=.'�?9?
aoi
453.�00
4=?.v00
Ye',,lcw Mr cira
i :'Q
1..50
4:2
440
462.700
4' b0^
02. l.0
i:as* C2rtral
2C^
443
5.030.000
5.030.'000
.4
230
416.000
2' 5. JC'�J
C/ar:•=r
1. ra
.J
4Z3,�IJ
'
�•1�. �''rJ
,•I
297,0^0
ngrvi
.�
1.:;Z%
553
3�5
;3
^43
147
.
,�
,
J
6�
?
cuu
753,^0
Jiv,u,r11
? 3.
�_1
:J3:sr9
700
F:0
307
?12
15.0:'0
i5. :110
y
30
? ,^ C
.1?
- 9J
323. O,O
�23. C-;610
19.-5G
257
=^3
7.116.00)
== —2==� 23:_3 N r�'i =i I --
- -— — -i-- '"0
MINNESOTA FARM NlRlBeRS, AVERAGE FARM SIZE, AND TOTAL LMD TN Fll'tRMS,
1993 AND 1994(continued)
CcUnty Averat, a —ctaj I_nJ
and N-j„•nr of 7�r7s =arm S;ze
�is:rict "-
?:3_3313 _.:4 :::•�
AI
71
275
'il-a-La=s 7.1 �V 207.0 0
i96.CC0
2°9 33-s' coo .35.Wo
2)
L._$C.=:G 3.44 4:7 2 21 1 1. 8 6. 0G0
C:tt1^,.aa 1.:33 -77 -
jaCt::-,^^Z4 32S.00 338.0:7
�;: 'i8
i7u _7 :1n
i �r� i.^.G i•C:0 A^$ 4?a 430."00 430.0-:0
JI y ^�Lor-4.000G
l :'70 1.'.�0 „Z2 293 .^q C10,
? 335 437.0 200 4"
r pat: n2 j?0 ;ro :i a 7. vJ�
35? 272„rJ0 _72. 600
5v0 JU
hock ..370
5 �n ” i tf~W e sL' � 'G 339 254. uC0 2?4, 0-1:
y. 0 9.3n :,5 373 3. 05.%C0 3.5]5.000
Slue E.rth
3• Jf,� J.-40}.3?0 323 •23 433.000 433.000
rr-=a.aac
1.'t0 0 Al2259 "0.000
Firit:-u't i.200 1.170
rr_eL�rn 1 �? 3'7 366 =28.000 a23,0i0
420.030
Q0.000
M3 tin r0 e.2 2`7 237.000 237.000
n�:�tin 1.2 0 1.290 337 345 435.GC'0 435,003
X70 9.'? _y7 304 255.00^�
S�el2 1.20 1.1� 21? 224 264,x,30 ^54,000
210
253 269 258.000 2,8.^00
.�aseca c 0 -
l8trrr.p!j ;�� �, 304 311 249,000 2�9.uv0
Uuth �z�r 1 , i.0- , 234 343 254.00 254.%30
2. a __210 %94 302 3.595.000 3.05,':00
r-kca
� } 235 224.,,0 224,000
r i I lcln. , / 0 J ' `.4 :22 157, x`00 297.000
G:. '09..e2 1 a , ; •720 3'�1 li0 533 000 533.003
i.,5o ,, cJ ",2 %�3 4, n�i
P':u:r_n 'CO i _, ,2 3. uu 443.0'00
�' - 0 32i.COO 32i.0i0
�i3._L�d-.:� ^05 �i4 437.000 437,007
52 293 171000
_7; A1C
- .- �h'' 230 221: 3.2:9.000 3.9:4.100
Z4i ;�� 23.700.000 ^.
9�.7aa. 2199
As a resident of Packard Avenue who lives directly across
the street from the proposed site of the Lef-Co Farm feedlot
which includes a open football field size pit holding 3 million
gallons of liquid manure, I would like to present some of
information I have obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. After doing much research, it has become apparent that
the MPCA is all too often given much more reverence than it
truly deserves. The granting of a feedlot permit by the MPCA
is not the scrutinizing process that we have been led to believe,
rather it seems to be more of a joke than anything else. Almost
anyone who applies for a feedlot permit can be granted one.
Do not believe for a minute that possessing a MPCA feedlot
permit in anyway requires a city to approve of a Conditional
Use Permit so that the proposes feedlot can be built.
In my conversation with the MPCA regarding Lef-Co Farms,
I was informed that no one from the PCA had ever gone to the
proposed site to survey the area nor had anyone inspected the
neighborhood or surrounding areas including wetlands and water
ways. An inspection of any proposed feedlot site by the MPCA
is an extremely rare occurrence. The MPCA does not make a
site inspection a requirement in order to grant a permit.
Secondly, the MPCA does not verify that any of the
information which any applicant provides is correct as stated
on the application. The MPCA assumes that the information is
correct and truthful unless someone informs them otherwise.
Just how many of falsified applications are approved remains
unknown.
Thirdly, the MPCA does not care about zoning or the
neighborhood or areas that these feedlots are placed in. The
MPCA policy is that the zoning issues are the cities
responsibility and has absolutely nothing to do with them.
This stand shifts the "problem" directly onto the municipalities
shoulders and consequently, the MPCA appears to be more than
happy to approve of every feedlot presented to them.
Fourth, the focus for the granting of a feedlot permit
by the MPCA Lies on the MPCA determination of the feedlots
"potential for pollution".
There are approximately 80,000 feedlots in Minnesota and
only 16,000 of these animal feedlots carry a MPCA permit. You
may ask why so many feedlots lack a permit and the reason is
very simple. The short-staffed MPCA office in St.Paul has only
4 inspectors for feedlots in addition to 1 inspector in 4
regional offices for a total of 8. These inspectors do not have
the time to even remotely inspect feedlots 8 hours a day for
compliance or even visit one a day as they are over-worked with
other pollution related problems. "Asking the MPCA to come
out and look to see if your feedlot's OK , is like asking the
IRS to come take a look at your taxes." is how one farmer
commented on the MPCA inspection and compliance program.
Inspections and permit compliance by the MPCA is geared
towards "facilities causing environmental problems" or rather
existing feedlots. It is estimated by MPCA that 1 in 10 feedlots
is causing serious environmental problems. A 1991 Star Tribune
article states "The scale of the pollution problem may be
mind-boggling, but it's routinely obscured by indifference and
even jokes. When the board of the MPCA tackles a troublesome
feedlot, it's not unusual for officials and staff members to
make wisecracks." When was the last time anyone heard of
a feedlot being closed down by the MPCA for not being in
compliance? The MPCA is notorious for not enforcing the
compliance of its guidelines. It can impose fines to offenders,
but it can not close down a feedlot.
Minnesota's livestock produces as much water -tainting
Pollution as 40 million human beings and by including chicken
and turkey production we can add to that figure the equivalent
of another 20 million people. The feedlot animals have greater
potential to contaminate the states lakes and rivers than the
states human population.
For the MPCA to achieve anything that would even resolve
the feedlot problems, it must update its rules to fit the times.
Currently they are starting the process of writing more stringent
feedlot rules which is estimated to be completed in 1997.
13.a
On Saturday September 16, 1997 I attended the Special
Meeting for the Planning Commission and Council which was posted
as a "all day meeting for site inspection". The sites to be
inspected were the current Lefco farm, the site of the proposed
Lefco feedlot and the Vold Dairy Operation in Glenwood.
Chairman Swenson stated that the only people allowed to
ask or present questions at any of the sites were the Planning
Board Members and the City Council Members.
We first went to the current Lef-Co site where Jim Lefebevre
guided us and explained his current operation. Jim Lefebvre
became upset and asked "Is that necessary?" when he noticed
Tom Casey taking notes. After Chairman Swenson explained that
we could not ask any questions, Jim continued with the tour
of his facilities.
We then went to the proposed Lef-Co site on Packard Avenue.
Jim Lefebvre had us walk out in the alfalfa field. He displayed
a drawing of his new facility and showed us approximately where
he would place the buildings and manure pit in relation to the
land.
After Jim Lefebvres site was visited we drove up to Glenwood
to inspect the Dorrich Dairy. What stuck me first about the
remotely isolated Vold 230 cow feedlot was that it was placed
out in the middle of nowhere - the only visible structures that
could be observed in any direction were the tips of some silos
off in the distance. There were no schools, golf courses, or
residential houses located anywhere near his facility. It was
the perfect example of a place for everything and everything
in its place and this feedlot was perfectly compatible with
the surroundings.
We were given a guided tour through the facility by the
Vold family. Though the milking area appeared clean, I noticed
many dead flies on the floor of the area we walked through -
enough of them that they were grouped together and couldn't
be missed.
The manure pit outside was located less than a 100 feet
from a pond. There was no fence around the pit to protect anyone
or anything from falling into it nor were there any signs posted
warning us of the pit. The daughter -in-laws comment about the
lack of a fence was "We don't need a fence, because there is
nothing out here."
The questions that were being asked by individual Planning
Commission members, we could not hear the answers to due to
the single file line at the Dorrich Dairy.
The feed was stored outside and as I got closer to it,
I noticed just how much it really stank. Each type of food
had its own peculiar odor. Not only did I find the smell
unbearable, I noticed one other unique thing - The ground moved.
The ground that moved was not loose feed blowing in the heavy
wind - rather it was thousands of flies crawling about and flying
about. I have never seen so many flies in one place at any
one time in my entire life. The Daughter-in-law, then stated
that the one thing that they were not prepared for nor had
anticipated was the fly problem that they were having.
On this trip we did not experience (see, hear or smell)
the following:
1) We did not experience the actual milking operation such
as the noise and commotion of cows and the sounds of milk pumps
running because we were there at 1:00 p.m and they indicated
that they milk from 4 8 a.m. and 3 -7:30 p.m.
2) We did not experience the noise of a milk truck with an
auxilery tanker loading up with milk or leaving even though
there was one there when we arrived because we were to remain
on the bus with it's engine running until 1:00 p.m. when the
tour was to start.
3) We did not experience the sounds of equiptment scraping
the full manure piles from the barn floor and the smell just
before the scraping occurs. This is done 3 times a day and
it was obvious that it had been done prior to our arrival.
4) We did not experience the smell of a filled up 5 -day manure
storage pit in the barn or the extraction of the manure.
5) We did not hear the noise associated with the feed being
brought in from the storage area to the main barn and being
IL4 .e, -a
distributed to the cows.
6) We did not experience the mosquito problem from the tires
anchoring the feed stacks.
7) We did not experience the calves being hauled from one
part of the farm to another.
8) We did not experience the agitation or the removal of the
manure from the lagoon.
9) We did not experience the downwind smell of the manure
lagoon as we stood about 100 yards awayfrom the manure pit with
20 - 25 mph winds.
10) We did not experience the flies and smell of the barn
on a hot humid summer day and the daughter-in-law admitted to
serious fly problems during those times.
11) We did not experience the smell of the manure spreading
operation. The Dorrich Dairy did not state the maximum time
the manure stays on top of the furrow before it is disked intot
the soil. They only stated that the manure stays on the soil
a minimum of two days before it is disked.
12) We did not experience what it smells like before a crust
forms over the manure.
13) We did not experience the feedlot conditions and of a
manure pit 5 years or 10 years after it had been in place.
14) We did not experience feed being trucked in and being
unloaded in the feed storage areas.
15) We did not experience the continuous sounds of 350 cows
clanging metal bars as they were feeding.
What we did experience was:
1) A dairy farm out in the middle of nowhere - you couldn't
even see another farm from the site. It was where you would
expect to find this type of operation.
2) We saw a non-operating feedlot at 1:00 p.m. just after
a lunch break.
3) We saw a enterprise partially owned and operated by well
trained computer whizzes. The son had a bachelor's degree and
the daughter-in-law a MBA. There are no asurrances that Lef-
Co and its successors will have this level of skilled management.
4) We saw a 230 cow operation much smaller than the 400 cow
feedlot Lef-Co is proposing.
5) We saw a manure pit that is smaller than what Lef-Co
proposes.
6) We experienced basically nothing!
Mr. Vold also told us that Minnesota is losing 3 farms
a day. When I researched this figure, is found out that the
number of farms in Minnesota actually has increased to about
87,000. In figures from 1985-1987 there was a drop of about
2,000 farms which averages to about 3 per day over that period.
The drop in farm numbers did not specify the cause for the
decrease which would include such things as farmers dying,
retiring, shutting the farm down because noone in the family
wanted to continue farming, the combining of several farms into
one, business mergers, partnerships being formed, selling
the farm for development, bankruptcies and farm mismanagment.
Furthermore there are no guarantees that the proposed Lef-Co
operation will be successful.
We are not against family farms staying located in Otsego.
In fact we support family farms. What we do not support is
a corporate commercial feedlot being placed near a residential
area. No one is saying that Lef-Co shouldn't continue farming
in the manner that they are now doing. What we are opposed
to is the INTENSITY of what they are proposing and forcing us
to tolerate the noise, stink, flies, envirommnental pollution
and traffic that this project brings with it and from which
there is no escape.
The Conditional Use Permit should be denied for the
following reasons:
1) Under Section 20-4-2 F 1, The cities comprehensive plan
does not mention that it would promote construction of feedlots
nor does it state that the city would help any particular farmer
maximize his profits.
2) Under Section 20-4-2 F 2, the proposed use is not
compatable with the present and future land uses of the area.
There are no other commercial feedlots anywhere near this area
nor are there any other known MPCA feedlot permits granted to
anyone else in the area to build a similar feedlot. This is
the "first" time that the city of Otsego has had to deal with
this issue.
The present use of the area is growing crops mainly
alfalfa and corn which is very compatible with residential
housing.
3) Under Section 20-4-2 F 3. Trucks hauling feed, moving
cattle, hauling milk all make noise. This activity is much
more noise than what we have now.
4) Under Section 20-4-2 F 4. The effect on the area will
be a increase in noise, smell, flies, and the complete
irreversable disruption of the neighbors to continue to enjoy
and lead their lives as it has been known to them for over
20 years. Furthermore Lef-Co Farms can not control the wind
nor can anyone produce a sample of what the 20% odor that a
manure pit will smell like after a crust forms really is.
5) Under Section 20-4-2 F 5. The location of a feedlot
will negatively impact the values of the residences near the
feedlot and in the vacinity of the feedlot. Who would want
to live there?
6) Under Section 20-4-2 F 7. Who would want their children
exposed to the distracting odor of applied manure while they
are trying to concentrate in school to learn?. Who will be
responsible for cleaning the ditches if a hose breaks or leaks
when they are applying the manure? Who will be responsible
for accidental discharge clean-up?
Section 20-4-2 F states "Their judgement shall be based
upon (but not limited to) the following. The most important
part of this is COMMON SENSE. Common sense tells us that this
is the wrong time and place for this intensfied commercial
feedlot.
4.s
!nc.
La-rry L, Johnson and, A s3 , t,..,
:1:07 : ranicn, Avenue Scuth :iioneapoti,, ,tilinneseta 5541;;
(612) 0-25-2091
.Yfay �0, ) �►� rO �f is a t.L l . :'t�. ;ecu. ... i
rra
t;o' J.L Sour;:o.
3LY
W..,ter Quality Dix ision
N Lmnesota Pollution ContrOL .-` -n,.y
i ....
;? 0 Lao t
M ete F.oad � - -`
Sr. PauL j.L l 5= 15 4194
e: Proposed . to Za
les Go�-^_,nin;
Tnis letter is is response to a request for coj=euts regarding mimal t-edlots. i`!:e i iQ.i:c
OfL,tant to Solicit Ln oration or Opinions Regarding Proposed Amend:Lcnt to F,ules
dnim�l Caa�ln+, �,r;. D..T^nnn C1�� t..., nn.. ..
id4. :ll. -V. /1141J. V`Jvuu was dated ivia., 1,i, 1991j.
iy ccncem is about the c:L-rent rise of Ili'
as thfactor when evalixat ilg
1L'wvsurc uti.izMon rues. In inv opiaiou, phosphorus should also be ctmlidered, and ma.v be;.o:zic
the limiting factor.
There are several Cora.-Uof]ly uSed, but outdated, t'asstwcptions,, about Phosphorus :h: t
havo affected earlier rude-raaldg decisious. The co=mon "asSILmr-d-Ons" and updated
inforn- aton ar: pro,, -idea bellow. References are provided as an ntaciuu_at to thi., letter.
l rtt I - ` Z,T-ec -t= �S t 3 �r ' • ' ' ' 1 + :
Z?lt Mi tes ofphoThcr h- t mi 111 tns soil ,.i7,i rIitl" to sol "art 1
. �ll,n the ;tl particles mo: -e.
hOC Lords can be lost from ,1_sail-crows moi` . !,,Cu
leas" —13, sura u'face clow, 1-*ld surf::cc nmotT /P,{,l: I p. 70) Y
ti.
_�..SC11i7t', ti ^y Yt.:U:+�ilcUil� i. i sl;:Die :Ll suit and C1il L': " i 1;1 r _ .1
t _ bul kai cl J,Lor.j in sc�il v\i: .:ja ...t
Awi',emlem.t CTntl v?;Ir: TFornc;nn nnr.�Nr 1 ; • 1 a .. _..I.t *. _ ..
A +
w .. _. _...1 ,. .va.�..i♦ wJ .i^,•ia7 ,4 rrvw•,t IJV 1LLI. Lt:.Ui LU 7M -mu :1U—?- rr,:- S O.t
pI,ospi,t)nis to the "hid" :ar.l.ge io.r rtiture crura useiprodec.ion.
CU1r:ly�.1. MINT - ".$ica s -e L?ho.—,phoras Li t "-,tti.tiy twand to i.'•" Mil, Mvli l e1a,� Tt s to rr:,dac., a
an. : p1l Vrus lo. t fr aim + th;,
:.olt:it or alto 1 fi�r�in� sy stain:: uavy +o,r:is•.:! ria ru:IuciD' ";
l't�i�illcin atro� ion alooH, alma J1 r - l G':earl.
T tl• 8.3,��t t1ll, .Vial 1Ct U:. 51:lUl ; 'it tJ t:OnT-rOl p-r;hf?: _.
:.Osse"s iZ tl:? Cho_pI'ow.s :°,VPIS :1,i So.d build liftt•t to )i' h l "„' i�' i•;
T 1 ` � t' -•,.
11 an aortts Is til ' 1 r_., * it ,
w Q C ' . �. �1.�l1r_. ,.ii_..$ :/..-, arL'Jl4 t Qa �UI��t��-� j%1•�%.`^.�.1:C:1;j . . l:l':J VQ?.'':tl”:'':, . `j
Sa ry'v' ii
P. J�
Ibis. Lynne M. KoLw
'may 30, 1�}95
't:
���: �l;.!i �a l•"t'�,(Cty :%:: v.'it [.�/ ! CS^!!f)l[„r if!~I:: ' •�trs)rt �• '
ais !;t :�ofl ss;:::2 rrc•�;'tziil6 Q'c::?uQte,' nilos7hcr:[s �' `
, , � aY Ci^C�7 �r ,,'Lf•fjt sfi� r'iCCi �� CI
t! �•u":�'1:t 1,Gc?r t Ljr' 0pwRIs °o rid?,ce Jj7a4D,[!4i'!JS IA7CziIt S lfl Surf�Cs�
[:+ut+h�rs' +,n.`pJ�;is] (1t;f. 1 -p. 73)
l:o�hc. ? a ..
!eVels in the soil le d to incrca e�?--,_;,,ms lc in
sLrfi;Z w CCP brth i t 'y rr t .. 1o,p.' 7-7) a�•3• •a,a
:e.ution a:.d at:sched to so-;! ��
ofcii tests reporting i3ieh toVery Hila levels of soil pLoliarus iu
[nnesoti is 76% (oue of the highest in the nation). (Ref 1 - a• 74: Table 2-5)
. a crop c�ti�t on a soil t: Sting vary high for pbospboras has az low probability (v C.) 10
ptr.i'-ut) of responding to Ztppl,tnental applications of phosp'aoras fertiLi�er." pp.
or su,pendirg phosrohorus appcations to soils already testing lliyh or vti,y �Y
for pLosphorus is an unportant Nvay to improve bots the economic and enviroume cal
perfcrr.:ance o£ arir.itg systems." (Ref l - p. 75)
A` '-' I tin # 3 - Qnly Minute amounts (0.02 to 0
soil water. .1 ppm):ofphoSPhorus ions exist in solutic2z in
CQND.li 'T - "Algae ,row extremely rapidly in Szurfacy water contaa mho, porus
levels of 50 u 'I (l;pb) [O.G5 ppm] or o:eater." (Ref. 2 - p. 30) ` r
s` n►,2t,% t - Fhospi-ate ions do not leach even in sandy soils.
C0N3;: j IT - ?11osiLoras ora drain; eld e uw
- nt, at ,:n average conctiutratio'1 of Ii) -3G
clam, i; as u^:ed tosaturate the soil particles at a rate of I cti.%
Nils. L,,=e M. lKolze
May 30, 199
;�OsL.:.GP?s t7 'S..2?::I•� �.. '� .y
,o ,+ - r:.r fW0 tLi - 50"1 At ion : pCiZt Lh,- 50ii
,,vat r to I,,, or a ► e -. V-�Niff :Lo to"�� d '
pb.Osp 1 =r .i �.. h p i 'ELLS. Card, t.
� 3I'ti�;. ,'.1
ltc ru; aec�r<i so?tiLIe and can rri rate i:;to the hrou�zd ti: Iter =11d
even l,%jLouj so:l erosion.
This Sir-Iltion alve:Irs 12-Z 1), NNlle elle no -k ._:. t
.�.��,,�� " a, -la is just a 1;;.'=r -'t C+t:?Ci\V't_
Sound sl rfic r a r• lrI 1c
� e, st.cn s c .fists at some man L, a.Fplicatiou fi:ia5. .P.!r.'oric ter'
conditions "i'1-.- flooding
ac..r""nate the si A .,
tuat.on. �lLRO� ol:;r.;Z;ar' 50m�. Held, in, �L�;tu•�sct
a century or more and appl3 in; potentiah,; e-;ccsshre pi;o-sphorus mavhave m=ead•;
ill ih:. L cd the soils capacity to End pho,yhun.ls.
A_ ,tL tion #� - Studies of int: sively humed la: -
d indicate that the .nnual loss in iLuivaLre
,water seldom exceeds 0.1 pouner acre
p (Source'-
Sourcz
_em r t 0. ,�•tcc
OfItiiscoasin Ext.). ,L
s soca, leaching ofp!locrtihA,,,g to trTol,_•,a •r'....r � - - ;. ,., ,
become a proble:� u.u�c, t:.:t.r �s not u..e:y to
COIN(31E: T - "Phosphorus, another. nutrient found in to1nure, is essential far plant life.
Phosphonis (P) is also considered a potential contaminant. Because phosphorus is a
liraut"" nutrient in most of Nf nesota's Surface uraters, any additions ofph,)spLcrus
become a problem.." (Ref 4 - p. 6)
-00000-
In sammary, ps„Dltonts is a sigzn cant parameter in atiimni t �11ur, that Si7ot,ld be
e�. aluatcd as Bart of Manure Mar-a?CMent and disrosal daci:�ion-niakuLT. ftcwo ition of alis isZte
i' .s ecia0y iu:ponant as it relate, to ;a7ace ;`a%,r quality matters, ,uch as the p ort to remrd:atc
t,r: _,i nresota :�.n er and otaer water resources. -
Thew., you for dhis oo'�er .tnir` tor. + r.
I '1
.} u
i
r;.
'
s' -P eCttlI.,y,
f_ari, Lls<<ilu.-oL
T
15.3
446 No
ON 3 CIL ,-•.\ ;'I:aTER ..._, N S ..n %IAT 10 IH C I niIt" T
ice• _ ! . �� , i V., ..
August i, 1995
ynne Kolza
nnesota PollutlDii Control ',rency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, :-i 55155
Near .is. Kolza.
Roul3 4. Ag Serme Cer • r
.+r✓ 1 +.� ! 1 a i `a... :� I !',.i� is �}�( : ;� . 1 '.
` 1
;•LY,el QJCIIf% t��•r
Thank you for the opportunity to comr:ent on feedlot rule revisions. Our concern
is the overall authority or lack of authority to actually enforce any action
in regards to feejlot pollution.
In February of this year, we had a manure managrlent selinar attended by 1E0
feedlct operators. nim Brynildson spoke on behalf of :IPCA and presented a slide
demonstration of sites where the MPCA had jurisdiction and concern.
Following that ;meeting, I turned in a producer on the Swan River in the village
of Sobieski here in Morrison County. The site was the most flagrantly polluted
feedlot we could demonstrate in ;Morrison County. :lark Stuart responded to the
call, took a video and water samples which confirmed the data we had collected
over the past year in a Swan River study which had too many parts per billion
to court of several contaminants. This feedlot and a few similar sites were
visited and we were assured that something would transpire.
The producer not only pipes his milk house water directly into the river, the
'.)ack of the barn is not even 20 feet away from the river's edge in spring flow.
lice barn cleaning daily manure and straw are piled on the edge of tl:a rive:- a11
;.inter and when the spring tl:aw takes place, the entire winter's worth Cf ba n
=anura is washed do,,mn stre ri and winds up in the :Iississippi River.
The video shc,...ed °Ihe co�:s in the river as a Coatinuous activity, tiie iu,A.
iy aranitiin +-1,e rivar anri rhe a-nt_ira herrn is :i_n t•}ia F1nnri n1:3in.
ulti:m.atel.y, nothing whatsoever, was done. I was told that lie would recaiva a
letter of non-corlol_iance which he has not received as of this writing. '=:'c:'.
if he do -,s recciva it, ere will not tape it seriously since lie received one nn
from :''FCA -ad n othin� vas done even i 1Cll�h ha didlli t char, -"2 hl'�
'Iy c�:ar eat
L' !era owe could b(2, if that is tae
worst case we have,
and J.t:
received uo
auLhoLiCy from
,,PCA, what chance do
e have of having any
produc.<:
:eeslot rules seriously? It _bsolutaly
stopped our :a i.'.ity
c!:..c J.
c..__ r .o r e
to maim solo chan,;23 Tiles DS, t Conser, ll ion
_:c ..
Ms
he had b_^_a to
traiL-i zo+-
t�
..'it
:-,.at fie raunct cit'
i17Ct:,9 %i "I
:.. .�Ltz bra nt ^cni2s to
been;ir'.i.a
,..�a o� a
Shoreline Impact ?;ecucti:
to srec ficai.?v fence out
livestock and get
tha
,Earners to a-r:�c_ •_o
c_ t!- a
"tcols"
c.�_ needad
..as
co ...:':a :IiC:� u...:,
` -ca �,
... :` r .._,._ .l ...i5 coCJ C:.n-.i.'. ..dl
t 1
that L
� -as in Their
bes:: Ii:t. -_i 'Sts CO i% _
.• "t1 its in a voluntary -man nar.
de -scribe.. to ,'c'.:, it .:c?s nod Jean rcC?� a.:�' ':` . " a
_Il t -::uch aut.ior_ty to be cQz car ed abcut.
as `w'oul'd anccour..ga XPCA to _irher get some Leath into their rul'!7> or
to J2c2. C:i and 211ow local c•Oso-ma auchcC=_, if .? _cu`- ::Z�: to �J
-i7 `-
.. ,•,=::i:.; about -lot runoff _n our r4var:3 _: ri stra: ;..s.
_ncaral-
:)_`strict
1 1 0-)
U
'N
i is Ns 1 :-3 c
7 t i
j:
t a 'p o I u.tl :1 Ag z Y
'2 0
i -:-or ilii''
-ontrol
nn 1 u t i 0-1
jiv to sit ,jit�j you and ether so
-COrL p(:)j,. icy rp s earch,
(,,1.PCA) sta f
I -- r to review
in ord r
r linoermi t de ta i 13 0,T-1 L
a 11 d , S': ac; i i ca I I y, the int-
-
rural ;'any(::n, %I-innasota.
"LO a e cZ ep i d r
sc
`1?
i d �� m i o I oz -of i c i In P,-' c S on public heal th and anim cl, u e t a n
i
operation oi-: industrial-scaje animal fee,lot facilities... These
in
do not seem to get necessary aor
nd
epidemiologic impacts an health
the the interim permits
f 11 e development of
sufficient attentic
the construction and operations of industrial -scale prod-.jcticurt
units such as proposed- for, the Scmbay Dairy Co,'-nz3any at rur-a-111
,--nycn, nneso'k. a
iarmi t% MPCA---L 1377 (103-7 1
concernt-d about intL p --tion and oparaticn of all
.1995, Cor olanning, cons"ri
--lnimnal and 'o.r m,-rpj* a storaga ars-a for Boml�ay Dairy
a L l:
i Z"-'adlat facilities located in the sout'i'Velest 0ne-quar-te1' u
As stated in
c t n in Wanno.
a-ni-o T,vins,11.0 of C-ocd'v.,,,s County.
r i 1TI P "Th -2 `propos,?[
s a'
tiocatonv -3 been i d e n t i L i :d a;; t 0 t-,3Z1ticli
t
ri
t
S a t I i
d, ic' T'a 1 os, a o n of .11 o -�j toring t-- L L
I !I C' 0.1-
-C i a
Y s ric k.� u 0! 7-,
j j.a-
") 1 '�l oom'* e r n e I I;
r T. -a
a .3 .,, r;i ;k.
T h i o
A A.
al C Y
1.
C"
n
Q
L
t--! t
T Sy
T` -E'
U
'N
i is Ns 1 :-3 c
7 t i
j:
t a 'p o I u.tl :1 Ag z Y
'2 0
i -:-or ilii''
-ontrol
nn 1 u t i 0-1
jiv to sit ,jit�j you and ether so
-COrL p(:)j,. icy rp s earch,
(,,1.PCA) sta f
I -- r to review
in ord r
r linoermi t de ta i 13 0,T-1 L
a 11 d , S': ac; i i ca I I y, the int-
-
rural ;'any(::n, %I-innasota.
"LO a e cZ ep i d r
sc
`1?
i d �� m i o I oz -of i c i In P,-' c S on public heal th and anim cl, u e t a n
i
operation oi-: industrial-scaje animal fee,lot facilities... These
in
do not seem to get necessary aor
nd
epidemiologic impacts an health
the the interim permits
f 11 e development of
sufficient attentic
the construction and operations of industrial -scale prod-.jcticurt
units such as proposed- for, the Scmbay Dairy Co,'-nz3any at rur-a-111
,--nycn, nneso'k. a
iarmi t% MPCA---L 1377 (103-7 1
concernt-d about intL p --tion and oparaticn of all
.1995, Cor olanning, cons"ri
--lnimnal and 'o.r m,-rpj* a storaga ars-a for Boml�ay Dairy
a L l:
i Z"-'adlat facilities located in the sout'i'Velest 0ne-quar-te1' u
As stated in
c t n in Wanno.
a-ni-o T,vins,11.0 of C-ocd'v.,,,s County.
r i 1TI P "Th -2 `propos,?[
s a'
tiocatonv -3 been i d e n t i L i :d a;; t 0 t-,3Z1ticli
t
ri
t
S a t I i
d, ic' T'a 1 os, a o n of .11 o -�j toring t-- L L
I !I C' 0.1-
-C i a
Y s ric k.� u 0! 7-,
j j.a-
") 1 '�l oom'* e r n e I I;
r T. -a
a .3 .,, r;i ;k.
T h i o
A A.
al C Y
1.
C"
n
Q
L
t--! t
E ::�ba� D:xiL,.
Cor�gar. is ccnsi a-_ �,ei2
':3Si.1
s,a
tJ.»3C o_ anii.•aI ti: with ;:3 x:0`'1'.,
fe?`, Or il, :03,037ra1lvnS
CuaCit�T. C!� Cont ri
t'�.» .,)J
:+a,,;3,
t;:e in :O' ..:1 :,
t<<� a--wa:3tt v:}1�:...�, -.a.i t:.3 .a�.
!'� ! I.
ter vo?c:r.'e, _- a 31 i ., Fc_
CO1;s . 3nn.uq
watt a z erat :— a net 3 :orad a<AC
cons idared as n
_ d:itial-.:ca_:e
�haref-ora till scal? and :3i r:3 ;�C ^?. �,�.i:I`.�ay Da.ir :1;� a511'�i_
feedlo.. .:'e -la ndV_ =ci ce_
an(d aubsegu3nt s u r v a i i lanea o mcnii.C; lilg i:e1 is A'') min:1.ni
prC:;ai:ilit`_✓ Of ig:li ii'.ant C:Jni.:?;"in::i iC1 Of grou�id
drinking by fz;,-ni 1 i :i and I .vtccX• • • Fis^eC ial ly, y iv-3'ii
presence of I line. tone be-drock u.iG?r lying the S-'timb'-Y Dairy CC lca!"Y
animal feedlot ilmestone identifiad by the on -sic
soil borings...
The soil borings taken in November 1994, at the site of Bombay
Dairy Company feedlot; and a geologic examination of a str.am'-cut
into bedrock located three miles due west of the feedlot, moth seem
to indica' "_ • �� a t _ r, :1^d �n ,,. ;e_ 1 ,,, -,a
�: (.hat. t.. i i a f e e �.1;� . S
limp -stone bedrock .- hi ch can be fissured sUCh t':at t11Ee Crac',<- cd
limestone permits the rapid movement of aqueous solutions from tile
feedlot facilities into aquifers that aro used for dri::;<:ing leiater
by the public and their livestock...
Monitoring wells are required for facilities which store swaec corn
silage from Commercial processing plants, Yet this larg? scale
dairy feedlot is not required to install monitoring '.;ails... wells
necessary to determine the base 1 ina data of the glial i ty of groul:d
waters, and then to alloy/ the periodic independent inonitoring of
these ground wagers... for the e=arly detection, rented ! and
remediation of ant! ground water rol lut ioil.. .
The inclusion of at lea -at four (12) monitoring weli:i at the sita OA'
the Bombay Dai. Y Comp—nny Eac.ilitias gi'!e'3 t:i? public aIi overs i ht
ccntrC1 hr0'.igh the peri idle lnd!3_'' azi4tent s amPl i -j and
l:•ort.ing c. L (.:1? •: uc21 it ! l.ind 'Nat rs. . . JdtF3rs ]Qteni,ld
re
1:uCaCt'3'] 'D -.i (:ti,?ratlCil:3Y oO q �C�iLO'�i.=3 1:1::1.I:it'..=1�t-sC13 ;R:�C.^'....it:a
aciiiti:es...
The instal lar ion of nerim-�t sr drainamt i le i inas a»a L :c ui _ ; tt�
Protect the basin berms froi.I C a,-,iaga by the tuid rI-lin
pr -assures Orcm tna fiil tl And the 1.1= i:he:_ il:c? •:si
t11eEi' SCi:i'e cerll?i'ate?" lie 1_.,=ea _^v L' ttl `;!:e-,;i'.rg
a—yl-1 :•'j :�c".oil^ 1�-
b•-.iI.Iat 'i e'-: ( '? ..:?.0:1
iiLl.ic,to, cn1`(
i:.ill:i'a Qi. `! ill....
SS
-J-
' t J Of ti?e Interim, =3-7,-.i
i_:cm ,:lidtar til? J: min r -f a: _ _-
:�.':. ', ^.. `�- �a18 :_tatem;'i It is at aSt only a p t J a I t-::ih,
linea t lesa -:erinlet e drainaci-a 1:.as ai
..... _. " t .... 1 l�' �:l'�?.- �,1�] er.'13, and tl:G
C i a�; :j l) J - _ '. `
d `oy n1J `j A ct clav loa , :oll • . • )
.... , rated e.3...
t.;:an ;0 y�'at `,r'nl tiles dialnater perforated
c� ::?' Cir'_ _':li::yc- t L 1 1 i:las ;1I e Clea igne to ..
til : r3 r 1 u• a h . .
`:latl- out and awayt the O. .Gill
1 , ;fir l ��:-S tha:l i i '�._ :.
•a �'' r8 :1t v Cil. V a Si1c ar ter_. C1�3 r1 '
.� C , file ,- sin can pot:antial1'! 410.14 i:ltO � = ''' ��:
r• und-ar to I area under t'.l3 bis .Il
;gc� tale and I1Qt ti?3 implied t yy -
o r• Cin tha e 1 cy i
~ nn walls ar� nec�ssa_ 1 fr g
monitor; :�
�,
o �� t,,? �CftllJa,/ Dairy Cc:apany e 110 L � ...
{.itl�.r �� "•'*eY• Qua I':ilpcct-3 O'C .Ce 'atilt 201111t_Cil
.. . , i .1 r J j a C t l , > i V C J
Cont7lol SyStSM3 c1-� 1to ,valuate eartl-:e:l manurs = c,
,. round and surface water qua?ity by monitoring
for effects on g
r d �/ conce.r n that
seepage and runoff ... indicates your concern an m_ m that car.
Hartnell �:anure storage basins are sub;ect to separ�
�=•�ct ground an surface wa.i:er :��.•�1'tt1...
I and particularly
concerned :ri tl1 hydraulic pressures that can damage clay liners ; rc;m
underneath, such as hydraulic _)ressures from nigh water gable i
oils
in the spring
season and the effects of burrowing animals
including soil nematodes that can penetrate clay liners... This
concern of significant seepage below earthen -basin clay liners is
further confirmed by studies in Wisconsin (by University of
Wisconsin et als.) • • • and in Morrison County, Minnesota (b- MP -A,
Soil Conservation Service a Univers.itY of 14innesota).••
The public health importance of ::seepage below clay 1 iners
earthen basins is not only due to the probable able contamination o=
eachate containing nitrogen, plosphates, fatal
aqui ��rs by l Cd, Al .. •) .. but also bA1 leac iatti
i:oli`or;ns, heavy metals (Ca,
t affect biological syst_ms••• in the
containing organic toxins tha
3i1U2 :-' arm and file long -tar -M .
;� e'`'CC (::�r an'c toxins in animal`Jist£e is ,"_eferc:iL" = o
, '�Y
•1. \,liLEl].Lilial as OE Dr. Ci. Guy a o- the Utn_`✓e?
?_ liandr '+riliCil :,1If�j a !:nr
til3s`a to:,,ins in - round
_r,;u�.t is near c.a u :.ti�ill�.l i:al t: Flci r
.� (a .. . . •j :.e t l :: a '•�..A-': ' "Z-1 't1 G Ll O
�;�J
be nli ss in froin your prop; ed s cuu ; e
l e<:chata coo t:�J:':i.i1 , s e,- t0 t ,0e ;i11Ct
fit`' gt�;;?tl s?ai1215; -nd, LI'rt(lz?�tnor�:3r 3e�:ii O iali
�. i recto 11:7: i.iCi �L �a:Q')l:?fi f�<)ii`•. r�(]1J?(�Ua ::I1(iCll i t
_ .1 in use.} ;�
;i t! .! U 1:il. xi t:l',, i v•..�
i s '1 a ra nj, I
. t - , r` '��: :. :1 . 1 :i t�•�v:,:1j r �:7 t.a 1 � .... ..: .i
l rile: i
GUPTA, G.
E --i" S. 7—:3 L"
C h a n c -:::i in Pov, 1 i- ClY J
Contam. Tcxicol
—, _3 7 3 -53-1.
T -0
Changao i n. �� o u 11 t r -Y L1 T :-.1 1 c 1%'il til
n Zo
0 j,, .
7 2
Cn. m. 0:I
GUPTA, G.
and XE:,TV. 19 , -0
T o x
C -, 1) C ri :iia:
Fc1l.r 33:113-1117.
G U P T- A, G.
Effect o
Co -o. -posting and NO!mb,,�;: I ck j on U - 7
t t
BCD and Toxicity. lr-Tatfar it Sci. 1 13,11-1 its
-
GUIPTA, G.
and ?. KELLY. 1992
Poultry Litter Toxicity Comparison from Va--icus
31cassays. J.
Environ.
Sci. Health, J1,27(4):10,33-1093.
you for any atit;---rition to nv publ -ir, Insal til ---oncerns aGsociat-id
with the interim Permit stipulations for the construction and
operations of the Bombay Dairy Company of Kenyon, Minnesota... '"ad
I would appreciate an axplanation cc why monitoring wells were not
stipulatein the interim c�rmit for construction of this
industrial -scale animal feed101t-..
S i nc.m-re I Y,
rr
Jai 3
T
S
CC, Pa
1: ri 3 -L-- y n i I d. soil,
L Ho
j,
14V
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
Vol. 1, No. 1, August 1995
Welcome to 'OT -STINK -O'! Future home to a CORPORATE COMMERCIAL FEEDLOT.
440+ head of cattle. Larger than a football field sized RAW NLXNURE PIT. Over 3 million gallons of liquid
manure - when agitated will smell worse than ROTTEN EGGS. Located inside city limits. Directly across the
street from prime residential homes!
WHERE IS THIS 24 HR. A DAY COMMERCIAL FEEDLOT OPERATION?
- 35 minutes from downtown Minneapolis....
- 3 miles or closer to City Hall.... 49
- 13/4 miles from the beautiful Fox Hollow golf course....
- I mile from sparkling Foster Lake....
- 1 mile from the new Otsego Elementary School....
- 1 mile west of Hwy. #10 1....
- 1/2 mile from a new proposed residential sub -division....
- 1/2 mile from the Frankfort Township line...."
WHAT ABOUT: The flies! Stockyard envirorunent! De -valued homes!
City Image! Air quality! Worse than Rotten Egg smell!
Noise!
IMAGE THIS: An evening bar -b -q. Nice breeze. Neighbors over atter a game of golf, or boating, or
company from out-of-town. Steaks for dinner. Guest: "So -o -o -o, where's your bam?
Did you raise the cow yourself?"
YES, FOLKS, THIS COULD VERY WELL BE YOU! THE SMELL OF MANURE & CATTLE CAN TRAVEL
FOR MILES.....................IF THIS FEEDLOT IS ALLOWED INTO THE CITY, IT WILL SET A PRECEDENCE
FOR ANYONE WANTING A FEEDLOT WITHIN CITY LIMITS. IT WON'T MATTER HOW CLOSE IT IS TO
YOUR HOME OR IF THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY DROPS. LEF-CO FARMS WHO WANTS THIS
FEEDLOT WILL TELL YOU IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL
AGENCY (MPCA), BUT THE ONLY THING MPCA CARES ABOUT IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
MANURE PER ANIMAL AND IF THE MANURE PIT WILL LEAK.!
MEETING: OTSEGO CITY HALL 441-4414
WEDNESDAY - SEPT. 6 8:00 P.M.
CORPORATE COMMERCIAL FEEDLOT
Lef-Co Farms wants a Commercial Feedlot. They will say this is going to be a Dairy
Operation - so it's different - but the permit is all the same. They will tell you that they
are approved and have a permit from the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). With this
permit they can't understand why the City of Otsego wouldn't want to issue them a Conditional
Use Permit.
COMMERCIAL: THINK ABOUT THE WORD "COMMERCIAL"
MPCA FACTS: Makes no difference if it's Cows, Sheep, Pigs, Turkeys, Dairy
Operation - it's all the same permit. The odor is horrible.
MPGA SAYS: * 100' away from a 50' deep well.
* 300' away from a river or stream.
* farmer needs to have enough land to dispose of the manure -
doesn't care if the land is owned or rented by the farmer.
* manure pit has to be approved for seepage.
MPCA HAS: NO regulations on where a feedlot is located.
NO regulations on where fermented feed is stored.
NO regulations on how close to neighbors home.
NO regulations on air quality or rotten egg smell.
NO regulations on a 24 hr. operation.
NO regulations on noise.
NO regulations on the size of the buildings.
NO regulations on the health of the neighbors.
NO regulations on de -valuation of homes.
NO regulations on the control of flies or insects.
hfPcA DOES SUGGEST A COMMERCIAL FEEDLOT BE REMOTELY
LOCATED. LEF-CO FARM IS NOT REMOTELY LOCATED.
BECAUSE COMMERCIAL FEEDLOTS ARE SO NEW TO THE STATE - THE LOCAL
CITY ORDINANCES SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE TO DETERMINE AND PROTECT
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF IT'S CITY AND RESIDENCES'.
PUBLIC: HEARING: Otsego City IIaU 4.41-4-41.4
Wednesday, Sept. 6 8: 00 P. N1.
I�S.r