AOPA Feedback

Sue Pearson—Red Deer

 

  1. The seasonally high water table must be put back into the regulations. Utilizing the term “water table at time of construction” must be totally eliminated. The water table can vary from year to year and from season to season. Using the water table at time of construction can create unforeseen problems, one of which is the breach of the lining of the lagoon from the water table rising during spring melt and the lagoon being emptied out. De-watering a water table must not be an option.

  2. The construction of the lagoon and the building should be checked by an “Independent Qualified Inspector” and not left up to the engineer that designed and stamped the design and construction. This would ensure that the lagoon and building were built up to the specified standards and eliminate the perception of bias.

  3. The way the residences are counted for calculating MDS should be changed. Ex.

    • A single residence is a Category 1
    • 2-12 residences is a Category 2
    • 13-20 residences is a Category 3
    • Over 20 is a Category 4

    Whether the residences are in groups or spread around, measurement is taken in a circular radius to the operation. The balance of the definitions for each category could remain the same.

  4. Land base for the manure application should be proven to be sufficient before the application is approved. Not as it is presently being done whereby a condition is put on the approval for a manure management plan to be submitted prior to manure application. If the land is not suitable for manure application and other land is needed this takes away the right of “directly affected person” to have the right to speak out. This will also ensure that the land base is sustainable for the operation prior to construction.

  5. Applications are being approved that are incomplete and the Approval Officers are adding conditions to make them appear to be complete.

  6. Approval Officers are not filling out the Sections of an application that is required to be completed . As affected persons are requested to make comment and address their concerns to the Approval Officer, if the affected person does not have the information required, how can they make an informed comment?

  7. Clarification is needed as to what is needed to make a liquid manure storage facility secure from access by an unauthorized person. A single strand of wire around a lagoon with a flag on it will not restrict a child from access.

  8. Environmental and health issues have got to be addressed by the Review Board and the Approval Officers. More emphasis should be put on reports and concerns that are brought forth by the Health Authorities and the Environment Departments. If the registrations are to remain, Health Authorities and the Environment Department should have the same status as the Municipalities and if possible more. The health of adjacent landowners and possibly all Albertans may be affected by any negative consequence of a CFO. This must be reflected in the Regulations.

  9. Intervener funding must be available to directly affected persons so they can hire the professionals needed to protect their way of life, water, and their very existence in a clean and healthy environment. The producer is able to get low interest loans to set up their operations, shouldn’t the rest of rural Albertan’s also be given the same respect. The NRCB Act allows Intervener funding yet when it comes to CFOs, there is a different standard.

  10. Once an application is deemed complete no further information should be forthcoming. An operation was deemed complete, comments were made, then the original engineering firm was changed, details of the operation changed, this makes it very costly and time consuming for directly affected persons when they hire professionals and the information keeps changing.

  11. There is inconsistency across the province as the Approval Officers are interpreting the Regulations.

  12. Their needs to be an emergency plan put in place at all CFO operations, oxygen must be made available at CFOs where hazardous gases accumulate.

  13. Buildings must be built to meet the fire codes.

  14. Mediation prior to the approval of a CFO.

  15. Time extensions need to be made available, not all people receive documentation and have sufficient time to respond to an operation before the deadline.

Summary

We are very disappointed in the way that the NRCB have handled the Approval and Enforcement of the CFOs in Alberta since they have taken over. We have seen operations approved in water tables, drainage basins, peat moss and flood plains. Unqualified operators have constructed lagoons and during construction, leakage of the liner occurred yet nothing mentioned regarding the breach by the applicant or the engineer.

Municipalities have requested reviews and been denied. It should be required to do a review when the Board is requested regardless of who is asking.

Other examples:
  • Enforcement orders made but a number of them failing to come under compliance and nothing is done but more enforcement orders being put on them.
  • An enforcement order put on an operation but because they have applied for an expansion they do not have to comply with existing conditions.
  • Enforcement orders are put on an operation because the manure is running off the land and nothing has been done to correct this. This operation has had three enforcement orders.
  • A number of affected persons have brought forth health concerns and the Review Board and the Approval Officer have ignored this. Too much authority with no accountability is a systematic problem that must be corrected.
  • Approval Officers using Regulations that have not legally been put in place.
  • There is a great inconsistency of the use of AOPA and the Regulations across the Province. AOPA and the regulations purpose was to make a consistent, even piece of legislation for the approval/enforcement of CFOs across Alberta. This is not happening with Approval Officers not filling out the applications forms, information missing from application forms required to be filled out by applicant. Requested information is being added on as a condition instead of being included in the application. Why bother with an application if nobody is going to fill it out?
  • It is evident by the responses and action of the NRCB that AOPA and the regulations are geared to promote the expansion of the livestock industry in Alberta. Since January 1, 2002 it has become abundantly clear that the environment and health of Albertans are to be ignored and all that matters is the expansion of CFOs.

Respectfully Submitted by
Sue Pearson, President
SERLO, Society for Environmentally Responsible Livestock Operations (of Alberta)

RR #2 LCD 1
Red Deer, AB T4N 5E2

Cc Albert Klapstein

Dr. Ken Nicol

Raj Pannu

Luke Ouellette MLA Innisfail-Sylvan Lake