Save Bloody Run

11/13/2024

Supreme Beef water permit remanded...

In a stunning decision the administrative law judge remanded the Supreme Beef water use permit back to the DNR, concluding in part:

"The undersigned further concludes that the determination of whether a “beneficial use” exists for the renewal of a water use permit, means the DNR must consider the “effect of the use upon the owners of any land which might be affected,” and “the interest of the people” and the “best interests and welfare of the people.”"

This is a huge victory in the struggle to protect Bloody Run Creek, and other sensitive areas in Iowa. While it will not change anything immediately, it opens a door that has been slammed shut for decades... meaningful consideration of the public's interest when water permits are handed out to industrial and ag-industrial users.

04/17/2024

"Ground-Water Contamination and Land Management in the Karst Area of Northeastern Iowa" by Mitchem, Hallberg, Hoyer and Libra
Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, 1988, p.442-458

In1988 when this study was published, industrialized agriculture's corn-bean and continuous-corn voracious appetite to feed emerging ethanol and CAFO industries was focused primarily on central and western Iowa. The Driftless counties in NE Iowa were beginning to feel the effects, but DNR and other Iowa scientists were not yet totally muzzled by a legislature and a state agency captured by ethanol and CAFO special interests.

The first line of the book chapter abstract states:
A statistical analysis of existing northeast Iowa water-quality data showed that systematic nonpoint contamination of ground-water quality was occurring in regional carbonate aquifers.
A bit later in the abstract:
Nitrate levels were highest in areas where sinkholes were present; areas without sinkholes but with relatively thin protective cover had similar but somewhat lower levels of nitrate
Near the end of the abstract:
Agricultural practices were judged to be the source of the contaminants and infiltration was the principal mechanism. Ninety-five percent of the nitrate and 55 to 85% of the atrazine were delivered by infiltration and percolation.

Let no one pretend that nitrate contamination of Iowa's karst aquifers was unknown, the cause was unknown, or the solutions to the problem were unknown. Statements to the contrary by government and industry spokesmen are mendacious. There are dozens of completely on-point Iowa specific research publications dealing with this issue, many of them cited in the Iowa Environmental Council's Safe Drinking Water Act petition submitted to EPA yesterday.

Nitrate causes cancer. Will the recent revelation that Iowa is second in the nation in cancers and the only state where the cancer rate is increasing be a wakeup call to a public only diffusely connected to water quality issues? As much as libertarian tendencies in Iowans may reject government intrusion, it's time for EPA's big stick. Do nothing and people die.

02/16/2024

The last public haring on new AFO rules is Monday. Here is the link.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85398435521?pwd=QjVFYUZPb0pIQ1prOE1kTEZkZVVKZz09

The rules are reactionary. They take away some of the protections for karst, including the directors discretion rule, and broaden the ways manure can be disposed of without accountability. The group leading opposition is the Iowa Environmental Council. Please go to their website to learn more. Thanks.

This is in addition to the terrible legislation proposed that would allow manure to be spread without an approved manure plan, and even spread when the plan has been denied. This is clearly in response to the ruckus we've caused with respect to Supreme Beef plans. We have their attention. One could argue that their reaction makes them vulnerable to public pressure.

Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board, confer...

02/07/2024

At the hearing held last week in Des Moines, when asked what motives petitioners might have for pursuing the water permit contested case, Supreme Beefs manager referred to them as “the devil”.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) staffers defended their decision to renew the water withdrawal permit for up to 11,600 cattle at Supreme Beef LLC, near Monona. Final briefs are due in early March. The judge may accept, modify, or reject the water permit.

A group of neighbors and environmentalists contend that the permit ignored the existence of nearby wells, underestimated the amount of water the animals might consume, and was not in the public interest, citing an increased pollution and public health risk. Nearby wells draw from the karst aquifers where the facility is sited, and manure is being spread.

James Larew, attorney for the challengers, pressed Michael Anderson and other DNR staffers to admit that Iowa law requires them to take the “public interest” into account when issuing such permits. Larew argued that language in the Iowa Code mandates that the agency protect public health and safety when considering water permits - and not just whether the allocation of the water constitutes a “beneficial use” for the user. DNR attorney Bradley Adams, objected, reiterating the agency position that “any (testimony) on manure or water quality is not relevant to the case.”

Dr. Chris Jones, a water research engineer who retired from the University of Iowa after Iowa legislators objected to his blogs critical of industrial agriculture, said one million people in Iowa drink water that contains more than 5 parts per million of nitrates - a level that’s been documented to cause significant health impacts. The high nitrates are largely due to Iowa livestock that produce manure equivalent to the human waste from 168 million people, Jones said. The nitrate level in Bloody Run Creek at a location just below the facility typically is in the 15-20 parts per million range- one of the highest continuous sensor readings in the state.

Steve Veysey, a retired Iowa State University chemist and one of the plaintiffs, testified about the increased risk of aquifer and well contamination due to the proximity of the site and the manure fields to sinkholes and other karst features. He presented several maps and charts related to current well contamination, the size of Supreme Beef compared to all other animal feeding operations in the area, and floodway obstruction by the cattle containment buildings and the manure basin.

DNR staff admitted that in all the instances over the past several decades where the public has commented upon water permits, this has never resulted in a permit being denied, and in only one case was a permit significantly modified. The Supreme Beef permit renewal received dozens of public comments in opposition – all were rejected.

DNR attorney Adams said “the department takes no position on what is right or wrong. We’re simply trying to carry out the law.” Plaintiffs’ attorney Larew described the DNR’s position as “irrational” and “misguided,” concluding with “A strong judicial ruling would make this a better agency.”

11/19/2023

The Supreme Beef NMP was approved November 17, 2023, after four corrected plans were submitted during the review process. Of course the public only got to review version one. I've long maintained that DNR has statutory authority to approve or deny a plan within 60 days, not coach, collude, and change the plan during the review process.

If there are issues, the DNR should reject, coach, allow resubmission, and restart the review and comment clocks. Any other process is beyond their authority and allows serious issues to fall through the cracks without public scrutiny. As soon as we get a copy of the approved version of the plan we will analyze and post again.

09/20/2023

Supreme Beef has now submitted a new NMP. Details to follow.

09/04/2023

Is the manure basin almost full? This picture was taken 9-2-23 using a zoom lens. My calculations suggest that the freeboard may be as little as 2 feet, and that is the minimum law allows. But with no approved NMP, no manure can be withdrawn, and I assume the cows keep pooping. I have limited confidence in my calculations, so if you are strong in physics and especially camera lens calculations, please contact me at [email protected] and we can Zoom to discuss. I don't want to cry wolf, but if I'm correct, it's time to report this and have the DNR do an inspection. Some facts...

The distance from camera point of observation on Hwy 18 to the concrete sluice at the NW end of the basin is 1300 ft. The sluice is 21 feet wide. The distance from the sluice to the farm house in the background is 2000 ft, and the distance from the farmhouse to the silo that looks like it's on the back porch is actually 200 ft. We know that the entrance angle of the sluice is 8.79 degrees from arithmetic I'll also have you check.

The zoom lens maintains the fidelity of the X-Y plane as I've drawn it, and compresses the Z-axis... duh... magnification. I "think" I can use the known width of the sluice (21 ft) to estimate the length of the exposed side of the sluice as 11.55 feet, which is the hypotenuse of a right triangle with angle 8.79 degrees. That means the freeboard height is about 1.8 feet, already less than I think Code allows.

Of course the measurement of 11.55 feet assumes the X and Y scales are equal, which they are not. There is a Z component to that slope, but the Z-component is only a few feet (about 10 feet if freeboard is 2 feet). Is the magnification large enough that I can assume the X-Y scales are equal over that short Z distance? If "yes" then it is time to panic!

08/25/2023

🚨Breaking news🚨
Supreme Beef withdraws manure plan after criticism.

👀Read more below about the latest news in the battle to Save Bloody Run.

Owners of an 11,600-head cattle feedlot in northeast Iowa withdrew their application for a manure management plan after a public hearing in which opponents said there were errors and omissions in the plan.

08/11/2023

Send comments to [email protected]

08/10/2023

Bottom line! Everyone, please, in your public comments, DEMAND THAT DNR INDEPENDENTLY SAMPLE AND TEST THE MANURE BASIN CONTENTS before finishing their analysis of this NMP! The "plan" supposes solids manure has been continually extracted by a screw press, when the press has seldom if ever been operational this entire year. And DNR knows that! The comment deadline is Friday, August 11, but that has been declared by the DNR attorney to be (paraphrasing) "a soft deadline", so if you need the weekend to finish comments, you can. I guess.

08/07/2023

If you haven't registered for the Public Hearing Tuesday 8/8/23 at 10:00AM, here is the zoom link.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86227005742?pwd=aXUrVXZMdHV1M2hRVTE4T1RMMU9hQT09. Larry has prepared a brief summary of some of our concerns. I'm posting it below.

PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY ON SUPREME BEEF NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

There will be a virtual public hearing on the revised Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) for Supreme Beef LLC at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, August 8. We urge supporters of The Committee to Save Bloody Run to participate, whether or not they actually make comments.

To register and obtain instructions, or to obtain an electronic copy of the NMP, email or call Kelli Book at [email protected] or (515) 210-3408 with your name and email address by 4:30 pm on Monday, August 7, 2023. Please state if you will be making a comment during the hearing. You also may submit written comments by 4:30 pm on Friday, August 11, 2023.

Steve Veysey and others have found many flaws in the revised NMP, which outlines how Supreme Beef expects to handle manure from its 11,600-head cattle operation in the headwaters of Bloody Run Creek. A major concern is that the plan under-estimates the nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure,

The plan bases manure nutrient content on a September 2022 analysis of liquid manure after solids had been separated out with a screw press. While stating there will be almost 30 thousand tons of nutrient-rich solid extract, and actually calculating the amount of N and P in the extract, the plan does not make any effort to account for those nutrients in their spreading calculations! The nutrients in the solids almost double the total amount of nutrients that have to be spread.

In fact, the extraction machine has not been used in many months, meaning that waste entering the 39-million-gallon storage basin now contains all of those nutrient-rich solids, which make it much more concentrated than the plan assumes.

The higher nitrogen and phosphorus content means that many more acres of land would be needed to absorb the nutrients at agronomic rates that can be used by crops without runoff polluting nearby waters.

There also are many issues related to the soil loss calculations and the resulting P-Index values for each field, which may make some fields ineligible, or restricted, with respect to manure application.

The Committee to Save Bloody Run urges interested persons to join the hearing and to make comments. Please note, however, that the DNR will only consider comments on whether the NMP was submitted according to DNR procedures, and whether the document complies with accurate information required by the 567 Iowa Administrative Code 65.

Although construction on the controversial facility started in 2017, and it began operation in late 2021, Supreme Beef has been prohibited from removing manure from its 39-million-gallon lagoon since May, after a judge ruled that Supreme’s NMP was invalid. Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg agreed with an Iowa Sierra Club and Trout Unlimited challenge pointing out many errors in the plan the DNR had approved in 2021, The DNR and Supreme Beef were ordered to prepare a revised NMP.

For more information, and our latest draft comments, visit www.savebloodyrun.org, or https://www.facebook.com/SaveBloodyRun