R-T Photo/Ronda Lickteig
John Everly, representing the engineering firm The Pinnacle Group, addressed those attending a public meeting Wednesday night at Trenton High School. Everly told the group that an extensive survey of land located southwest of Trenton on which a concentrated animal feeding operation has been proposed, shows that the land is not located within a flood plain. Residents of the area disagree and do not want a CAFO located in the area. Standing behind Everly is Sean Simpson, an attorney with Pipestone Holdings, the company that will operate the CAFO on land owned by Trenton Farms RE LLC.
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
Find out how to advertise here –
Email us! [email protected]
Yes, it is. No, it isn’t.
That was the gist of a public meeting held Wednesday evening by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources in regard to a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) to be located west of Trenton.
Opponents to the CAFO, being proposed by Trenton Farms RE LLC, claim that the area on which nutrients from the CAFO would be applied is located in a flood plain, while those working with the company say an extensive survey by professional engineers has determined that it is located outside the flood plain.
This was the second hearing concerning the property after the Missouri Clean Water Commission denied a permit for Trenton Farms. That case remains in the Western District Court of Appeals and in the meantime, the company has applied for a new permit, taking steps to address two issues that the CWC found with the original permit: the flood plain issue and an issue of continuing authority. Continuing authority is the permanent organization that will be responsible for the operation, maintenance and modernization of the facility or site for which the permit application is being made. The farm, if constructed, would consist of a farrowing barn with 936 animals, a gestation barn with 5,120 animals and a gilt development unit populated with 986 sows. An injection process termed “knifing” would be used to spread the manure into the surrounding farmland.
While a somewhat smaller crowd attended this meeting as compared to the one held in June 2015, there were still several opponents to the CAFO who spoke up to emphasize their belief that placing nutrients on the land in question would undoubtedly result in runoff and contamination of the water supply. Among those speaking were Mark Rice, John Rice, Lin Sturgeon, Clayton Barnes, LeeAnn Williams Searcy, Richard Key, Jim Williams, Rex Searcy, Freddie Key, Norman Ropp, Cathy Rice, Ginny Wikoff and Trish (no last name given). Much of the information presented was the same as what the DNR panel had heard at the earlier meeting, with best management practices being a common theme. There was a consistent concern about the location of the area that has been proposed for the nutrient application as well as a perceived “rubber stamp” approval by the DNR for permit applications without regard to the environmental impact.
Sturgeon said common sense is not being used, noting that you don’t see people building wells in the middle of a feedlot or a feedlot around a well.
“It’s a no-brainer,” he said.
Sean Simpson, an attorney with Pipestone, the group that would manage the operation, attempted to address both the flooding issue and the issue of continuing authority. Following the meeting, he told the Republican-Times that the facility would have the capacity to hold the swine effluent for over a year and that the farm would have 1,232 potential acres on which to spread the nutrients, so if it is not safe to spread in one area at a certain time, they could wait or move it to another area.
On the issue of continuing authority, he said all of the companies involved are legitimate companies that meet all of the requirements of Missouri law. He noted that some people during the meeting questioned why the company is an “LLC” or limited liability company and said that is how business is done in the 21st century. There were also those who questioned why Trenton Farms RE LLC stated in its application that its financial information is confidential.
“No business wants to put its financial information out there for their competitors to see,” Simpson said. “Maybe our banker needs to know it, but no business just opens it up to everyone. Ask any business owner in this room if they would want their competitor to see that information.”
Simpson said many CAFO permits in Missouri have been approved without that information being provided and that Trenton Farms has provided the information that the DNR requires.
The ball is squarely back in the DNR’s court. The agency will have to determine if the area in question is in fact located in a flood plain and if the company has proven continuing authority. It appears those are the only issues that are keeping the CAFO from moving forward. The DNR will continue to accept public comment about the proposed facility for about a week and will use the month of October to review them. The DNR’s John Madras, who moderated the meeting, said there are no hard and fast dates as to when a decision will be made, but he believes it will be at least three to four weeks.
For more information regarding state statutes, regulations or to view general permits, the operating permit application process and the Nutrient Management Tech-nical Standard, visit the DNR’s website at www. dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/cafo/.