Grant County Commissioners, Will They Promote Good Government and Listen?

The evidence appears to be mounting that the family farm is a better and more dependable source of jobs for this county. As the Veblon feedlots continue to have manure issues, Grant County needs to take a long hard look at its set back requirements.

The Concerned Citizens of Grant County have raised this issue and appear to be looking out for the best interests of Grant County. The Commissioners have a critical meeting next week and the Commissioners can probably save the taxpayers some money by being strong and doing the right thing.

Just this weekend the Veblon CAFO’s were cited for potential pollution problems and if the problem became real Big Stone Lake would be lost for years. We have already lost the power plant and we need to be careful about losing our lake.

I would absolutely encourage the Grant County Commissioners to take a high road and allow the people to speak, to do otherwise allows a few to profit at the cost of many. We need to work together to resolve the needs of the plant but protect the needs of the rest of the community.

The failure to understand the issue would be a serious mistake. We all support farming but we need to think about what we are doing.

Can you imagine what could happen if our setbacks are inadequate and a lagoon caves in? What would happen to the neighbors land? How would the value be effected? The mere existence at a time when we are supposed to be environmentally safe may create a decrease in the value of the property. If land values decrease it effects our schools, businesses and our tax base.

I would urge the Commissioners to listen carefully and make decisions. The future of Grant County may be at stake.

The commissioners are in a difficult position. Anyone who has ever been on a public board can empathize with their situation. On the one side, there are those who see factory style farms as a wave of the future and a big contributer to taxes. Also that such places would contribute to the ease one of our largest employers to operate. But now there is a strong other side, the petitions were circulated and signed by people all over the county, and they will be watching to see if the commissioners respect or have disdain for their electorate.
People who have circulated the petitions are very diverse in their attitude toward cafos, some do not believe in that type of farming at all, some believe it is okay if properly controlled, and that control would include greater setbacks as part of the zoning ordinance.
One important point is that if you have been a good neighbor and want to expand, your neighbors would likely sign an easement so you could do so.
Another point is that such places might contribute to less employment, not more. There would be less need for milk haulers if they do not have to go so far for product. It would certainly take out the 'second tier' of milk producers many of whom employ one or two workers each.
Remember too, that cafos are not just dairies, they also are large swine and poultry operations.
Water is a huge concern, all over Grant County there are places that have odd water tables. Where the dairy was going in Kilborn twp, there is a swath of flowing wells that cut diagonally right through that area. If we lose our water, we lose everything. The manure lagoons there would have been 20 feet deep and the size of 15 football fields-each. They are permitted to allow for leakage. Most of the neighbors have wells, thousands of animals drinking the water would likely have reduced their water supply, perhaps eliminated it altogether.
Grant County is a lovely area, but people will be less likely to settle here if they cannot comfortably be outdoors enjoying their surroundings.
Towns and counties with many cafos tend not to be thriving places. A number of us have done some field trips, talked to the neighbors and business people where cafos exist.
I hope the commissioners will respond favorably to the petition given to them.

Hmmmm…food for thought CGGCE, but a deeper look into your opinion only strengthens mine.
The organic label is getting to mean little or nothing in some situations. Horizon for example is a large producer of organic milk, but I have read that they are in danger of losing their organic status. A company like Organic Valley will drop a dairy for being too large, because they believe that family farms should be run by real families. If small dairy farmers have a family member that wants to milk cows, they start another place. Sound expensive? Well, the 40 million dollars spent to build a large dairy here could begin a quite number of small dairies in the area for a single family to run. No need to expand in one spot. Then it is easier to make use of the manure. Another thing not taken into consideration is that if a farm family is milking fewer than 50 cows, they have time to do a little grain farming, and raise some pigs and/or chickens too. It can provide a comfortable living, if not great riches. There are still a number of families around here who do that, and they do not have to worry about a massive debt load that could drive them out of business. People who drink O.V. milk and eat their butter and cheese are ingesting a product that came from animals that are out in the sunshine every day and eating fresh grass part of the year. The product is a naturally more nutritious product. Thankfully, Valley Queen also still gets some of their milk from such dairies.
So if the setbacks are enacted, Grant County could continue to be a good place for small to mid-sized family farms.
Cafos do need to be regulated, inspected and their laws enforced. But are they? The most stringent laws are useless if they are not enforced. The State of SD and Roberts County have dragged their feet as far as the Veblen situation is concerned. Ask the people in Veblen and Claire City what the Veblen East and West dairies have done for their economy. Ask how many local farmers have not been paid for their feed in North and South Dakota. The people who live in Thief River Falls Mn have been struggling with a hydrogen sulfide problem for years. Dublin East and West Dairies have made the town between them pretty stinky, according to some of the residents. South Dakota has no hydrogen sulfide regulations, so much for stringent rules.
As far as selling feed, there are many markets for what the Grant County Farmers grow, and if growing corn, hay and soybeans is no longer profitable, the ground knows how to grow other things.
CGGCE, you should read some of John Ikerd’s books. “Small Farms Are Real Farms” is a great one to start with. Dr Ikerd is a retired Ag Economist from the U. of Missouri. He once bought into all the stuff you are talking about. But the numbers don’t add up. Economically, environmentally and socially people are better off with polycultures than monocultures in farming.
As far as being a NIMBY, I have two thoughts. The first is when someone finds it necessary to call names; it usually means they know they are wrong. Second, there is nothing wrong with watching out for our own back yards. But the GCCC are concerned about their county and state. They wanted to help others who are worried about their circumstances. They have gone to a great deal of time, trouble and expense to help others. They do not have the help and backing of groups such as AgUnited or Farm Bureau, or other big money.
But the biggest thing is let the people of Grant County vote for what they want. “Under God the People Rule” is the motto of our state. Let both sides make their case and let the people of the county decide whether they want to increase the setback or not. If it is a wonderful thing to have cafos close by, you should have no worries CGGCE. In just a month and a half, over twenty percent of the area landowners signed a petition asking for the setback to be increased. Under God the people Rule. Let it happen.

I really hope the commissioners truly understand the various intricacies of this issue.
It's clear that one side wants a business/profits decision and the other wants a quality of life decision -- although the argument is very well made in that business will not be lost with a family farm decision...but it goes without saying that some big business that wants to drop in and be allowed to legally (if the rules are created to support it) abuse the local resources.
I find the argument by CGCCE to be cold, hard business, with no local roots or concern for the locale. Like a PR firm put it together.
Many, many communities have rejected a business decision in favor of quality of life -- and are far better for doing so.
It isn't all about money, and it isn't all about the many giving up their resources so that the few can get rich and, oh by the way, drop some money on the local economy. I think that's called buying people.
I hope they aren't for sale.

Roger Ginder, Kenneth Stone and Daniel Otto, were from the Department of Economics from the University of Iowa and they said in Congressional Hearings,

"The viability of agribusinesses which supply production inputs and marketing services to farmers, the main street merchants who provide consumer and retail services, and the other social institutions such as schools and churches, is directly related to the financial health and the number of farmers operating in rural areas." Emphasis added.

Quite frankly, there are volumes and volumes at these Congressional Hearings that say the same thing. Overwhelmingly farm economic vitality is only one of the aspects that effects Grant and Big Stone County.

CGGCE recognizes the first factor but how do you argue the second factor? Grant and Big Stone County continue the blight of decreasing populations in large part caused by government programs promoting big corporate farms and large businesses driven by profits.

The question is, are these large corporate farms in the best interests of Grant County? The evidence from the Congressional Hearings and our own personal experience is "no", they are not in the best interests of our rural communities.

What I here CGGCE say, is that right is right and people who own farms should do what they please. In essence, who cares about the county, city or neighbor!

CGGCE said,

Quote :

The setbacks required by the GCCC petition are so restrictive that a family dairy farm expanding beyond 600 cows (600 cows and 400 calves/replacement heifers) would require the permission of a neighbor ¾ mile away. Jobs are created by people who invest money in viable businesses and spend the money from that business.

WE should not prostitute ourselves to a dollar bill. Although we all can use money the article previously cited points to also needing population.

A good hearing will result if the Commissioners listen to the needs of those who need to make money and the competing interest in town that have retail businesses to have people to sell to and schools to have children.

Quote :

You would be doing so knowing that the future of your business could be up to a neighbor ¾ or more miles away, regardless of how quality, environmentally sound, or neighbor friendly your expansion plan is.

There are already laws that preclude a neighbor from doing acts that adversely effect one's neighbors. They are nuisance laws and are already on the books.

Besides that we all can get along here in Grant County. We derive from our native lands that have taught us to "do unto others, as you have others do unto you".

All of this really is saying that those who have or wish to have large CAFO's to not need to consider the neighbors. Is that what CGGCE is advocating?

I hope not we need to learn to co-exist together.

The Grant County zoning board voted unanimously to turn down the proposed changes to the livestock setbacks. Comments by the board included a lack of facts presented for the change.

I spoke against the change because I believe raising setbacks does not address pollution, employment, odor but simply pushes CAFO's into less populated areas next to rivers and parks and into the thin gravel hills where the aquifer water enters the earth. Better to make CAFO's neighbor friendly like Joelie's than simply put them out of sight in the Marvin hills and by our recreation areas. So I spoke to say I am against the type of dialogue going on and against the proposed change.

Right after the meeting I was accused of not communicating enough with Joelie Hicks. I tried, have I not posted enough posts on this blog? I don't take the public accusation that i haven't communicated enough with the group. I was not born with an obligation to listen to GCCC sermons. I will not be intimidated by such deception. It is no wonder people are reluctant to give GCCC members an honest opinion. This is the payback for trying to understand their position.

My opinion is honest and it's evolved as I have learned more about the issue. I won't accept an accusation that I haven't made an attempt to communicate with GCCC and other anti livestock people.

I have heard of this result with your posts. Two things come to mind. Why don't the Commissioners establish a task force to examine this issue intelligently, appointing people on both sides of the issue.The failure of the commissioners to do this tells me the group lacks leadership or really does not understand the issue.

Over the course of the last year you have taken paths that you must be right on this issue. This is an evolving issue and studies will continue. I think it is more important to me to have an open mind than to be right. This is one of the issues that is always changing.

By the way, I am working on a compromise that may be in the best interests of Grant County. As everybody seems so entrenched, there may be a solution that is better than what we have today.

As a community we need to be the best we can be and we should stop at nothing less. If the Commissioners made no attempt to be better than they missed a golden opportunity.

This does not mean to grant the set backs as sought. It means we need to examine the issue.

Actually, at a GC Commission hearing last year, Clayton Tucholke made a motion to create the very task force Mouthpiece is talking about. GCCC basically said they were not interested in participating, and the motion died for lack of a second.

As I was writing up the notes I took, and could look at the meeting with a little distance. I came to a few conclusions and have a few questions.
About our laws being the toughest in the country, but then mentioning odor is not addressed by the state. It is true that our state does not own a device that measures hydrogen sulfide, and there are no standards. This is not just a matter of not liking a farm smell, this is a serious medical issue. The CDC has recommendations for limited exposure to hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, two of the many gasses that become a problem when there is a large amount of manure.
I know Mouthpiece does not like studies, but there are some that will back up that the nearer a child lives to a cafo, the higher the incidence of asthma and the more serious the attacks. This was in a letter to the commissioners as well as the zoning board. The doctor cited studies in medical journals. He wrote the letter because there is a little boy who lives near the site in Kilborn Twp. who has severe breathing issues due to a chromosome disease. Should he have to move or stay indoors all the time if such an operation located near him? Should this family have to “take one for the county”?
It was said the setback would limit the number of cows to 450 with replacements and baby calves. I thought that most of the cafos sent their babies to other places to be raised, quite a number of people raise calves for the nearby large dairy operations.
It might be true that MDI spent 5 million dollars in Grant County and that 153rd street spent 20 million, I have no way of knowing the validity of the statement, so I will accept it as fact. Most of the farmers around here spend a great deal of money in the area, not as concentrated as that single operation, but I am sure it is significant. It is interesting to go on the internet and see the amount of money MDI does not pay in taxes because of it’s partial non-profit status, so it is a good thing they are spending locally. I have also heard a lot of comment from people south of town because of the rush to get the crop out, the roads and land are not in very good condition. Township officials have been getting phone calls to repair roads. Road repair costs money. As for neighbors building nearby; that is their decision, it was not forced on them the way it would be forced on us.
The reduction of milking operations in Grant County can be traced directly to the decision by the cheese plant to discontinue pick-up. That is the reason most of the area dairies have gone out of business. Was that a good, efficient business decision? I would not know, but it is pretty hard to continue milking when with no milk pick-up. As I said before, a multi-thousand herd coming would put another bunch of local dairy farms out of business. They spend money in the community too. Is it any more selfish to want to protect them than to protect large cafos and cheese plants? Guess it depends on which group one is a part of. Which brings me to the NIMBY accusation, there might be some truth to the name with some people, but GCCC has proven that they care about the whole county. Is it any better to be a part of the ‘I will force whatever I want into the area, because I can’ crowd? Especially by those who do not live within the setbacks of the operations that give them a comfortable living.
On to the comments by the zoning board. I had a feeling they were reading from a script. I guess the 800 people who signed the petition must be really stupid, because the board could not say one positive thing about our side. Were we short on facts? Maybe, but 15 months previously we gave every zoning board member and commissioner a large packet, with lots of letters, studies and a few photos that were loaded with ‘facts’. I would think they would have sufficient memory retention skills to recall the information provided. I hope they kept the packets that were the result of much hard work. But, there were facts that were just as valid as those brought up by the opposition. It is true that many of the owner/managers of these operations do not live there. Three citizens told the board that while they might write stringent permits, they do not enforce them, and they gave some specifics. The specifics are easily more provable than the 20 million dollar from 153rd street fact.
Are the regulations good? Ask the people who live in Milbank, often their nose tells the truth. Also the river is nearly dead over there. Are we biased? Yes, but no more than our opponents are. Do we want to get rid of livestock? That’s pretty funny, seeing as most of us are livestock owners, but no Linda S.; we are not cafo owners. Once an operation gets in they are not held accountable to operate according to their permits so we are naturally skittish about any new operation. Economic prosperity does not seem to occur in communities that have many large cafos. In SD and ND, there are farmers who are not being paid for their crops, or they are paid late and only in part. A large operation polluting is no worse than a small operation? Common sense tells me otherwise.
So the Zoning Board had complete disdain for the 800 landowners in their county, will the commissioners feel the same?
As far as dialogue is concerned Linda S., your neighbors would treat you respectfully, in fact they did treat you respectfully when you addressed them. Showing up at one meeting with a sheaf of papers and walking out before the meeting started and showing up at another meeting to monologue and then leave before any discussion could happen, does not a dialogue make. That is all I tried to tell you, I am sorry if you felt I was abrupt. Actually I am proud of the GCCC as far as dialogue is concerned. Various members made a number of trips to Riverview, some of us had a lot of e-mail connection with them too. Our neighbor Orgene McCrea, graciously opened his home to all members of the commission, zoning board, and the economic development committee. A group from GCCC walked over the land, and talked about serious water issues, potential problems and other things too. If you had been attending meetings you would have been welcome to be a part of that dialogue. There were quite a few visits because of open meeting law restrictions. Most of the county representatives were very nice, a couple of them had a chip on their shoulder and one’s behavior was downright embarrassing to the other reps there. On the other hand, the GCCC groups that went to Riverview were very courteous and had good discussions with the people there, who were courteous in return.
Our meetings have been lively and although the issue was serious, we have had a lot of fun too. We had all the state representatives come to address us, a fellow from the Minneapolis area who specializes in community development studies and issues. People from Clean Water Action, Dakota Rural Action, a couple of attorneys, and a Public Health professional came and spoke too. Bill DuBois; a great speaker was invited twice. We invited the wind people, but they would not come. We invited a community wind person, but weather interfered. GCCC has no stand on the wind issue, but we thought it was a good venue for them to address the community.
Four of our members went to Pierre and worked with our local reps on bill that changed a law, we did not get everything we wanted, but we achieved something. I think our record of communication and dialogue is pretty good.
Cafo owners, not just dairies, but others too, and the Cheese plant have every right to make their case. We have every right to make ours.
Let the people decide in a countywide vote. If we lose, we will accept the people’s decision. God does not ask us to be successful, only faithful.

Joelie

I want to thank you for your posts. First your objectivity and then your position.

I do not believe all studies are bad. It is the way they are interpreted that creates the problem.

A perfect example was Mr. Manlove's use of statistics. Using big numbers disguises the real issue. How many students going to the Milbank or surrounding school were created? I want to remind the readers that dairy farming is full of expenses. Spending 5 million dollars is not a sign of prosperity. For instance let's say that his farm displaced 10 family farm units and the average expenses to these farms were $500,000 each. How much of an increase did the CAFO increase in Grant County? You guessed it?

The point is that we must be careful on how we throw around numbers. I think some of the Commissioners need some lessons in economic development. We need people.

I have watched carefully how bias and prejudice influence the way we think. Money is at the root of this bias. Profit for one is not necessarily in the best interests of the county.

I see a lot of misinformation. For instance, someone is reported as saying that when the Commissioners vote the issue is dead.

Perhaps this person has not heard what happened in Ortonville. People there were also misusing statisitics and some thought they were winning when they got rid of certain employees.

Last week the voters spoke and literally cleaned house. Be careful! When I talk with merchants they recognize that continuing declines in populations are effecting their stores.

I see all kinds of ways to compromise and work towards a positive solution. The failure of the Commissioners to grab this opportunity could cause long term polarization that could divide the community.

I would encourage good government, not arbitrary decisions based on pre-conceived notions.

What did Washington D.C. and Ortonville have in common? Government that did not listen.

The decision ahead is, will the Grant County Commissioners be more like Washington and Ortonville or will they promote good government seeking solutions to rural issues.