SERLO's Presentation to the NRCB
Friday, Dec. 5. 2003
I was concerned with the Alberta government appointed Natural Resource Conservation Board (NRCB) taking over the Approval and Regulation enforcement process for CFO’s (Confined Feeding Operations) but was willing to give the NRCB an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to apply and enforce the rules of the Alberta Agricultural Operations Practices Act (AOPA), I have to admit my concerns have not been alleviated.
The process is what I figured it would be and environmental issues have been ignored. If a producer is willing to comply then enforcement is a good thing but if a producer does not want to comply then it is just a piece of paper.
What environmental protection is addressed by the NRCB? Liquid manure lagoons are built into water tables, flood zones, (although a dyke is to be built in one case but I don’t believe there are any specific dimensions for the dyke) the thickness of clay liners for feedlots are being relaxed and arable acres required for spreading of manures are ignored. If a producer puts down that 160 acres on a quarter section of land is available, this is taken as such, it doesn’t matter if there is a house, trees, farm building, creeks, streams, dugouts, hills or some other obstacle that makes it impossible to spread manure on. Then, when informed by neighbors, the Board/Approval officer chooses to ignore this information.
Test wells are set up around lagoons, if and when they are tested and contaminants are found, it is too late, the damage has already been done. If an aquifer has dropped drastically over a couple of years time, the “word” is that it must be the drought, it couldn’t be the few million gallons of water that the CFO is extracting from the water table every year!
A producer’s engineer was asked what would happen to the liner of lagoon if the water table got higher in the spring with the seasonal melt and the lagoon was emptied out. The response was that they didn’t know but they would deal with it when the time came. Where is the protection to the Environment with this type of decision making? So the liner breaches and contaminants get into the water table, what are the engineers going to do then?
To date, the NRCB Review Board/Approval Officers do not seem to express interest in the opinions of persons who live in areas that are now, or would be in the future, directly affected by the establishment of a CFO operation. Too many times, notice of concern has been brought forth and presented to the NRCB Board/Officers about the lay of the land, flood areas, soil types, amount of land actually available for spreading of manures, water tables and aquifers, documented health concerns and it is basically ignored. All of this information should be considered before an approval is granted but an approval officer, it seems, can make a good sound technical decision by simply visiting a site once or twice. The Review Board can make a sound decision by possibly making a single visit to a site! An engineer is PAID by the developer to have an approval granted by the NRCB. Anything can be “engineered” to meet approval for any area. The PINE LAKE LAND Fill is a prime example; it is now closed because it is too costly to operate. Why does common sense not prevail with these operations?
Under the previous system, the Municipal Planning Commission could use there discretion and turn down an operation if there were too many conflicts with adjoining land uses or owners, they were accountable to the ratepayers and were very familiar with the area, now there isn’t any accountability for CFO application approvals except to the Alberta government. Before the passage or the Alberta Agriculture Operations Practices Act (AOPA), there was a process by which affected persons could have their concerns addressed by a Subdivision Development Board of Appeal (SDBA). In the event that the developer or the affected person(s) were still not satisfied with the decision of the SDBA, either party had the opportunity to present their case to the Alberta Court of Appeal for a final decision. Today all CFO siting decisions are made by a NRCB Approval Officer and in some cases a Review Board will not even listen to the concerns of Directly Affected Persons by simply denying them a Review Board Hearing.
(The following statements are based on a letter, which was received from the NRCB)
In one part, it is stated that no new substantive information on all items, other than one item, would cause it to believe that the Approval Officer had not adequately addressed these issues. The one item had to do with the type of soil, a few days (from Tuesday July 22 to Tuesday July 29, 2003), before the cut off date for submissions to the approval officer, a fax/letter was sent out to affected persons saying that the soil type of the land to be designated for liquid manure spreading was black not brown. Upon closer examination there wasn’t enough land available for spreading with brown soil, the producer’s engineer had also initially confirmed that the soil type was brown. The acreage table and the nutrient management plan were not filled out, PART O. The MDS was first stated as being 2400 feet, which did not meet the requirements, then it all of a sudden increased to 2600 ft, which did meet the MDS (minimum distance separation) requirements. The directly affected persons requested an extension of the submission date as a number of them were gone for summer vacation, this was denied by the NRCB Review board. How many of the directly affected persons were even aware of the soil type change or had the opportunity to respond? The Municipality had previously rejected the site in question, including the latest application. The area had also been turned down for a landfill site as it was not appropriate and a very poor location due to the soil type.
After the Review request was denied, I asked John Thompson (Head, Hearing Coordination) if the directly affected persons should now obtain legal counsel before making their first submission to the approval officer, he said, “maybe they should”.
At the first Review Board Hearing the affected persons were told that “no, they didn’t need an attorney, as the Review Board would listen very carefully to what they had to say and technical information could come from the people who lived in the area because they live there and know the land in question, very well.” During the presentation, pictures were shown of flooded fields, roadsides, ditches, runoff patterns were shown of the spread fields, an elderly lady submitted evidence that the odors from the hog operation would be detrimental to her health, no soil testing was done of the spread fields even though they may not be acceptable to have manure spread on them, yet with the final decision, the operation was approved.
The only reviews that have come up lately are those where an application has been denied, the operator appeals and the Board will then grant a review. Seems a little one-sided to me, but then when you look at the name, “APPROVAL OFFICERS”, this should have been the first clue as to why they are there and that is to APPROVE the operations.
Thank you for listening,
Sue Pearson
President,
SERLO
