But environmental advocates say it’s a disappointment that the case didn’t end up in court — bringing out in public the risk that large farms pose to clean drinking water.
The Dairy Business Association (DBA) filed a lawsuit in July against the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), claiming it illegally changed the rules last March on farmers’ rainwater management.
“The DNR or other state agencies can’t make up the rules as they go along,” said DBA president Mike North. “There is a process that must be followed, and that process promotes public participation, legislative and transparency. That is good for everyone.”
Before the rule change, the DNR had encouraged farmers to build vegetative treatment areas for rainwater that comes into contact with calf and feed area, but the DBA said the agency flipped its position, abandoned the practice and required farms to collect 100 percent of the rain water.
Tom Crave, of Crave Brothers Dairy Farm in Waterloo and DBA vice-president, said that change would have cost his family-owned business a couple hundred thousand dollars to build a new manure lagoon and an estimated $50,000 annually to empty it—all expenses that couldn’t be made up in the consumer market.
The Crave Brothers Dairy is a 2,000 cow, 2,600-acre operation with a 37-year history that demonstrates the farm has been using modern, environmentally-friendly practices.
DBA said the new rules would have overloaded manure lagoons and led to more liquid fertilizer field application—increasing, not decreasing, the risk of leaching/runoff and groundwater and well contaminations.
Crave said farmers are willing to work with the DNR to find cost-effective, environmentally-sound solutions, but the agency’s process on some issues has problems.
“Creating more rules isn’t the right answer,” Crave said, “Farmers are willing to work toward reaching a certain target but the DNR can’t keep moving the target.”
The settlement, which North said shows the DNR overreached its legal authority, will help curb that.
“Farmers’ investments will be protected by this victory,” North said. “Current practices will continue where they are working. A farm-specific approach will save farmers time and money and we will have better and longer-lasting environmental outcomes.”
As part of the settlement, DBA dropped its claim concerning DNR rules on large farms applying for permits.
The association argued in the lawsuit that the DNR contradicted a state law by exceeding federal standards that require a specific type of permit only if the farm discharges nutrients to a navigable water.
The DBA said that the DNR was requiring all Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), farm with more than 1,000 animals, to apply and obtain a permit regardless if the farms were discharging into navigable waters.
Clean Wisconsin and other environmental groups attempted to intervene in the lawsuit in October before the settlement, concerned about the impact on CAFO permitting, if DBA won the court case.
There were 296 CAFO permit farms in the state as of May 2017, according to the DNR.
Clean Wisconsin said research shows that farms with 2,500 animals or more can produce the same amount of waste annually as a city of 400,000—leading to concerns of groundwater contamination and phosphorus pollution of lakes and streams.
Evan Feinauer, a Clean Wisconsin attorney, said the lawsuit also came at a time when cooperation between farmers, environmental groups and the state was productive.
“DBA’s lawsuit is an attempt by one part of the farming community to undermine the CAFO wastewater permitting system, instead of working with the DNR to address specific concerns,” Feinauer said before the settlement.
The organization is still determining the ramification of the settlement, but Feinauer urges residents to take heed of the environmental impact of large farms in Wisconsin.
“People should stay informed of what is going on,” Feinauer said. “This is the water they drink, swim in and use, and they have a right for it to be clean.”