Advertisement Vernon County board members heard from two members of the Department of Natural Resources staff last week about EISs, environmental assessments and the permitting process for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Board members asked good questions, listened to good information and then made what we consider to be an informed decision.
The board voted 18-9 against bringing the resolution, allowing county committees to request an environmental impact statement back on the county board floor. Is that the decision we would have favored -- no. However, county board chair Tom Spenner brought some knowledgeable people to the board to get information and more importantly, the board let them talk.
Going into the meeting, we could only assume that the board would leave the resolution tabled. Any resolution that even has a whiff of being anti-agriculture is going to get clobbered on the county board floor. Vernon County is an agricultural community. In many ways, the mindset of a good number of rural Vernon County residents hasn’t changed since the 1950s. That’s not meant as an insult. It is a good thing in many ways. We have neighbors who care about each other. We have farmers who care about the land. We have large families who work hard and play together. Vernon County people are loyal. They are loyal to their roots.
Some people obviously want to seek an EIS for any CAFO wanting a WPDES permit, because the hope is that the additional work that comes with an EIS will dissuade the entity from siting their operation. Tom Lovejoy of the DNR said this last week.
And while the county board isn’t interested in writing a letter to ask that an EIS be sought, there certainly is good reason for an EIS to be done should Petry Trust want to locate a 3,200-head CAFO in Vernon County.
Why? Health and safety. Simple as that.
Vernon County’s karst geology is not like the geology studied in Fond du Lac County for the Rosendale Farm EIS. Vernon County’s geology is vastly different, and the DNR needs to make certain that the nutrient management plan for a large CAFO fits with how quickly water and nutrients get from the top of our land into our groundwater.
After last week’s meeting, Supervisor Dennis Brault sent an email to Lovejoy. During the meeting, Lovejoy had said that Fond du Lac County has karst geology. What follows below is part of the exchange between Brault and Lovejoy:
From Brault to Lovejoy: “Thank you both for coming and addressing our board. I thought the information you provided was very helpful. During the meeting, Tom, you made the statement that Fond du Lac County has similar karst issues that Vernon County has. However, when I looked back through the EIS for Rosendale I found III-6 (page 43):
Dolomites and other carbonate rocks can form karst terrain when fractures and bedding planes are enlarged due to dissolution as water moves through these secondary flow features. The result can be sinkholes, caves, and enlarged surface fractures that are direct conduits to groundwater. In Fond du Lac County, these features are generally not prominent because the glacial sediments cover the carbonate rocks...’
Vernon County is part of the driftless region, so it doesn’t have the glacial sediments to cover the carbonate rocks. Instead vernon County has plenty of sinkholes, caves and enlarged surface fractures that are direct conduits to groundwater.
Would you please explain?”
Lovejoy’s response to Brault: “In response to your specific question below, look at section IV.A.1.e, pages IV 4-5. Specifically,
‘...In western Fond du Lac County, the glacially deposited sediments are relatively thin, overlying the dolomite. Groundwater flow in the dolomite is via fractures and bedding planes with very little attenuation of contaminants. Once contamination reaches the dolomite, it will be able to move quickly to the St. Peter sandstone. In the St. Peter, contamination will be pulled into the lower aquifers by strong downward gradients that exist in this area. Once this happens, contamination could become widespread.’
Hope that gets to your question.”
The question we need answered for Vernon County is, are there enough sediments overlying our groundwater sources to filter out whatever harmful elements that may be included in the rigors of spreading manure for a CAFO the size suggested by Petry Trust?
An environmental assessment may answer this question, but not to the same degree as an EIS.
The issue for those opposed to a CAFO is largely legislative. The law was written to favor big ag. Big ag pays a lot of bills in Wisconsin. Still, that does not make the law “right.”
Is one or more larger CAFOs good for Vernon County? We have to trust that the DNR will do its job.
We learn more about this issue all the time, through open discussion with knowledgeable parties. Despite the outcome of the vote, last week’s county board meeting was enlightening. More questions need answers.
Advertisement 
