NPDES and SDS General Feedlot Permits

Submitted By

189 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: COLLEEN J WERDIEN

7/30/24 @ 11:51 AM

I think the small producers need more limits on what they can do and I would like to see some measures to quantify if we are improving water quality with this legislation.

No attachments

Comment From: Wes Libbey Northern Lakes Chap... (Robert Scheierl)

7/26/24 @ 11:49 AM

See attached file.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Holden Farms Inc. (Kyle Holden)

7/25/24 @ 9:10 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Renee Bjork

7/24/24 @ 9:38 PM

If we already have proof of high nitrates in our lakes, rivers and wells. Why are we continuing to add more and more feed lots? When and where is our limit? It's very reckless to continue on this trajectory.

No attachments

Comment From: Ryan Thelemann

7/24/24 @ 4:55 PM

The current feedlot permits are an appropriate measure that enforce common sense measures regarding how manure should be handled. Some of the new proposed rules, especially those regarding fall manure application on certain soil types are too broad ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Bottin

7/24/24 @ 4:42 PM

I appreciate being asked for input. Thank you.
The current report info and system is very comprehensive and complete. I can not see how adding more reports to file, will improve water quality or reduce any possible issues. The current system is ve...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Caroline van Schaik

7/24/24 @ 1:56 PM

The proposed feedlot revisions include practices that could go a long way to restore, protect, and prevent the damning contamination of drinking water caused significantly by Minnesota livestock management. Field inspections for and reporting of spil...↓l and discharge, spreading onto a growing crop, water samples because of a spill or excessive rain, and manure buyer permit compliance are excellent, essential additions to feedlot regulations.
And, they are gutless in this proposal, paperwork crumbs with no evident means of guaranteeing their application on the ground. Just who is going to tell tales on themselves? Your parents didn't think it was enough to say, "honey, now please clean your room." You can't possibly think the same now and more to my point, I don't, either.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emergency intervention for nitrate contamination named the MPCA for failing to do its job. Yet without shame, you persist in safeguarding voluntary actions in feedlot permitting requirements – proposed and otherwise - as the order of the day. You can insert the word, "required," but it means a pass if there isn't also a "then what" and "according to whom."
Where is authoritative ground-truthing – not just paper monitoring - within these revisions? What are the consequences for the permit holder besides what we know: ongoing and further contamination of drinking water wells and the death and illness of perhaps your own grandma or child?
These revisions – they sound so good - are a refinement of the status quo cloaked in electronic paperwork and they are sure to make everyone mad. They confirm the MPCA as a pawn, not a leader. It is not restoring. It is not preventing, though these verbs all come directly from your water web page.
And for the record: Seed and equipment companies are well stocked and re-imagined, having responded in the past 15-20 years to the steady drumbeat for soil cover options because soil cover is soil health, money in the bank, and yes, good for surface and ground water. Water contamination is now. Prevention must be now; 2028 is not now.
Come on. Cut the propaganda, take back your crumbs, and make it clear to us that drinking water matters to you, too, just like you tout in your agency goals. Good ideas need determined, on-the-ground monitoring by someone other than the fox at the hen house. And good monitoring is a waste of time without serious, stated consequences for permit holder violation when it is the public good of safe drinking water at risk.

No attachments

Comment From: Andre Lima

7/24/24 @ 8:30 AM

I support this as it is critical to keep our water clean.

No attachments

Comment From: Judy Harder

7/23/24 @ 8:50 PM

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns on this important issue. I recently retired to Chanhassen but previously farmed in Cottonwood County. I continue to support MN farmers with most of my food purchases.

I am glad to see some of the ch...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cherie Hales

7/23/24 @ 4:34 PM

My name is Cherie Hales. I lived rurally with a private well for 40 years, and have paid attention to water quality for a long time.

Here in SE Minnesota nitrate and chemical contamination of the groundwater has been an issue for decades. In spite o...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Michelle Gobely

7/23/24 @ 4:30 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Michelle Gobely. I live in Saint Paul, MN. I care about this issue because we must stop polluting our water! Water is life! I...↓ am concerned about the way we treat the Earth. The Earth can only take care of us if we take care of her. Please do everything possible to reduce more polluting of our waters. Why this issue is not taken more serious is insane!!

I am glad to see some of the changes and updates that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. Many of them are commonsense ways to protect our shared land, water, and communities from the harmful effects of CAFOs, and I want to share my support for these changes including:

– Protecting our shared groundwater by requiring that by 2028, all lands that have manure applied to them in vulnerable groundwater areas must have either a growing crop, a perennial crop planted, or have a cover crop planted with 14 days of manure application if spreading in October and November. I also support phasing out winter application entirely in these areas.

– Protecting surface waters by limiting manure application within a 100-year floodplain to only application that incorporates the manure into the soil.

– Monitoring spreading by requiring the permit holder do visual inspections of all land application areas.

– Helping with cleanup and accountability by requiring the permit holder do water sampling after a manure discharge event.

– And making our rules consistent by requiring people who buy manure from a permit holding operation or spread manure for one follow the permit requirements.

These new changes are a good start to what must be done to keep people and our shared water and land safe, but they also leave quite a bit of room for improvement. Here are some changes to your proposed permit that I think would make it stronger and would bring it closer to what people like me and my neighbors need:

– While protecting water sources in Minnesota's vulnerable groundwater areas is particularly important, all Minnesotans, regardless of where they live, deserve to have access to clean water. The additional requirements to the October, November, and winter applications of manure in vulnerable groundwater areas are good, commonsense management practices, and the requirement that those practices be followed should be extended to all lands where manure is applied.

– While it is good that record-keeping of applications, including water sampling and ensuring that manure buyers are following permit rules, will be required to help make sure that permits are being followed, there needs to be a more robust requirement for permit holders to share this information with the agency so they can ensure permits are being followed. In addition, this information should be made available to the public. Communities that are at risk of CAFO pollution and its effects deserve to know that permits are being followed. Making this information publicly available will also allow community members to help the agency ensure that permit requirements are being met.

– In addition to water sampling and testing being done after a discharge event, this permit should require more proactive water samplings to ensure long-term compliance with the permit and to help ensure accountability. These permits should require water sampling and testing be done regularly around the permit holding site and where liquid manure from the site is being spread so that the agency and the public can know that long-term damage and contamination is not occurring. These permits should also require that new constructions of manure basins and new lands used for spreading must undergo water sampling and testing before construction begins or manure is spread to establish a baseline nutrient load for future testing to be measured against.

I am encouraged by the steps the agency has taken to strengthen Minnesota's NPDES and SDS permits to help keep us, our communities, and our shared water and land safe. I hope that you can continue these steps and incorporate some of the much-needed changes I have shared here into your new permits. Let's make these new permits something that will protect all Minnesotans.

Thank you,

No attachments

Comment From: Shannon Watrin

7/23/24 @ 2:04 PM

As a dairy farmer who has farmed in both southern Minnesota and east central Minnesota, I know firsthand that you cannot do a one size fits all for farm sizes and geography. There are practices, weather patterns and soil types that vary across the st...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Hsia

7/22/24 @ 9:57 PM

I feel it is important that these restrictions on manure application be required of all 17,000 feedlots in Minnesota, not just the 1000 largest with over 1000 animal units. Also, we need more stringent rules when rain is in the forecast. Manure runof...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Matthew Obermeyer

7/22/24 @ 1:13 PM

I support the increased requirements for feed lots in MN. As a SE Minnesota trout angler I believe the spring creeks of southern MN are an incredible naturual resource and protection of the water quality for the fish as well as the natural beauty is ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Judith Moore

7/22/24 @ 10:32 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Austin Bernstein

7/22/24 @ 9:55 AM

I am all for keep our water ways clean and safe but it sounds like you are only focusing on manure. What about the other fertilizers and sprays the farms are putting on fields are they part of the problem too? With how fields are tiled now days rain ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kent Grandlienard

7/21/24 @ 5:56 PM

You need to stop ignoring/allowing this repeated pollution by farmers and "Big Ag" that literally washes away decades of clean up /resorption efforts of our State's waters. Same thing with ignoring the repeated "sewage discharges" into waters after "...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mark Schultz

7/20/24 @ 7:32 AM

The unnatural concentration of livestock in industrial operations is an unsound practice. The only winners are corporate executives and shareholders. The losers are those of us consuming unwholesome food, our soil, water, air, rural communities and t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Angela Anderson

7/19/24 @ 8:52 AM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
While I believe that all these measures are a step in the right direction, but really they are just a temporary bandaid on a very problematic AG Industrie worldwide. I want to raise some other issues that I ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Kennedy

7/18/24 @ 10:08 AM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Mike Kennedy. I live in the city of Winona. I care about this issue because clean ground water in SE MN specifically, is enda...↓ngered by our karst geology allowing CAFO sewage and dangerous chemicals into our drinking water.
I am glad to see some of the changes and updates that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. Many of them are commonsense ways to protect our shared land, water, and communities from the harmful effects of CAFOs, and I want to share my support for these changes.

The new changes are a good start to what must be done to keep people and our shared water and land safe, but they also leave quite a bit of room for improvement. Here are some changes to your proposed permit that I think would make it stronger and would bring it closer to what people like me and my neighbors need:

– While protecting water sources in Minnesota's vulnerable groundwater areas is particularly important, all Minnesotans, regardless of where they live, deserve to have access to clean water. The additional requirements to the October, November, and winter applications of manure in vulnerable groundwater areas are good, commonsense management practices, and the requirement that those practices be followed should be extended to all lands where manure is applied.

– While it is good that record-keeping of applications, including water sampling and ensuring that manure buyers are following permit rules, will be required to help make sure that permits are being followed, there needs to be a more robust requirement for permit holders to share this information with the agency so they can ensure permits are being followed. In addition, this information should be made available to the public. Communities that are at risk of CAFO pollution and its effects deserve to know that permits are being followed. Making this information publicly available will also allow community members to help the agency ensure that permit requirements are being met.

– In addition to water sampling and testing being done after a discharge event, this permit should require more proactive water samplings to ensure long-term compliance with the permit and to help ensure accountability. These permits should require water sampling and testing be done regularly around the permit holding site and where liquid manure from the site is being spread so that the agency and the public can know that long-term damage and contamination is not occurring. These permits should also require that new constructions of manure basins and new lands used for spreading must undergo water sampling and testing before construction begins or manure is spread to establish a baseline nutrient load for future testing to be measured against.

I am encouraged by the steps the agency has taken to strengthen Minnesota's NPDES and SDS permits to help keep us, our communities, and our shared water and land safe. I hope that you can continue these steps and incorporate some of the much-needed changes I have shared here into your new permits. Let's make these new permits something that will protect all Minnesotans.

Thank you,
Mike Kennedy
316 W Wabasha St.
Winona, MN 55987

No attachments

Comment From: Aaron Goemann

7/16/24 @ 11:17 PM

I am a member of a farming family and a water resources professional previously certified in the general aspects of the NPEDS through the Erosion and Stormwater Management Certification Program at the University of Minnesota.

I deeply value the qual...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jeff Bauman

7/16/24 @ 5:14 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Cheryl Utecht

7/16/24 @ 12:57 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Cheryl Utecht
. I live in Winona. I care about this issue because clean water for all is a right. I understand that farmers h...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kurtis Wulf

7/16/24 @ 10:07 AM

I am interested in the NPDES permits since my family business holds one. The new rules around manure application are where I would like to focus my comments. Under the new rules, fall application of manure is still acceptable, and from an operational...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Monta Hayner

7/16/24 @ 8:30 AM

As you are required to protect drinking water for all people in the state of Minnesota, These measures for CAFO are a starting point. Yet they are not in effect for 3 years in which the nitrates will continue to increase in the Karsts region of Minn...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Nikki Fleck

7/11/24 @ 1:23 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Nikki. I live in Minneapolis Minnesota and used to live in Winona. I care about this issue because I think it the utmost impor...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Kutter

7/10/24 @ 3:56 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. I care about this issue as it affects Minnesotans in so many ways. Water is our most valuable resource and we must take care of it. Att...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ian Radtke-Rosen

7/09/24 @ 3:55 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is ____. I live in _____. I care about this issue because ______. [Share a little bit about yourself and your experiences.]

I am...↓ glad to see some of the changes and updates that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. Many of them are commonsense ways to protect our shared land, water, and communities from the harmful effects of CAFOs, and I want to share my support for these changes including:

– Protecting our shared groundwater by requiring that by 2028, all lands that have manure applied to them in vulnerable groundwater areas must have either a growing crop, a perennial crop planted, or have a cover crop planted with 14 days of manure application if spreading in October and November. I also support phasing out winter application entirely in these areas.

– Protecting surface waters by limiting manure application within a 100-year floodplain to only application that incorporates the manure into the soil.

– Monitoring spreading by requiring the permit holder do visual inspections of all land application areas.

– Helping with cleanup and accountability by requiring the permit holder do water sampling after a manure discharge event.

– And making our rules consistent by requiring people who buy manure from a permit holding operation or spread manure for one follow the permit requirements.

These new changes are a good start to what must be done to keep people and our shared water and land safe, but they also leave quite a bit of room for improvement. Here are some changes to your proposed permit that I think would make it stronger and would bring it closer to what people like me and my neighbors need:

– While protecting water sources in Minnesota's vulnerable groundwater areas is particularly important, all Minnesotans, regardless of where they live, deserve to have access to clean water. The additional requirements to the October, November, and winter applications of manure in vulnerable groundwater areas are good, commonsense management practices, and the requirement that those practices be followed should be extended to all lands where manure is applied.

– While it is good that record-keeping of applications, including water sampling and ensuring that manure buyers are following permit rules, will be required to help make sure that permits are being followed, there needs to be a more robust requirement for permit holders to share this information with the agency so they can ensure permits are being followed. In addition, this information should be made available to the public. Communities that are at risk of CAFO pollution and its effects deserve to know that permits are being followed. Making this information publicly available will also allow community members to help the agency ensure that permit requirements are being met.

– In addition to water sampling and testing being done after a discharge event, this permit should require more proactive water samplings to ensure long-term compliance with the permit and to help ensure accountability. These permits should require water sampling and testing be done regularly around the permit holding site and where liquid manure from the site is being spread so that the agency and the public can know that long-term damage and contamination is not occurring. These permits should also require that new constructions of manure basins and new lands used for spreading must undergo water sampling and testing before construction begins or manure is spread to establish a baseline nutrient load for future testing to be measured against.

I am encouraged by the steps the agency has taken to strengthen Minnesota's NPDES and SDS permits to help keep us, our communities, and our shared water and land safe. I hope that you can continue these steps and incorporate some of the much-needed changes I have shared here into your new permits. Let's make these new permits something that will protect all Minnesotans.

Thank you,

Ian Radtke-Rosen

No attachments

Comment From: Eva Barr

7/09/24 @ 3:07 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Eva Barr. I live in Fillmore County. I care about this issue because I am a small-scale, organic farmer living in a valley, do...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Possin

7/09/24 @ 2:19 PM

As a former resident in rural Winona, I am very concerned about the well water in the carst region--my neighbors had to drill deeper to avoid the nitrates. Please do not allow any increases in feedlot sizes--they are at dangerous levels already. Th...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Diane Bublitz

7/09/24 @ 2:15 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Diane Bublitz. I live in St Cloud, MN. I care about this issue because keeping our rivers and ground water safe for human cons...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Keith Laken

7/09/24 @ 1:58 PM

I believe all feedlots above 1500 head must provide complete sanitation the same as any city in MN. This means that any waste water from the facility must be as clean as the source water. In other words the same specifications for any waste treatme...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Brockway

7/09/24 @ 1:53 PM

I am glad to see some of the changes and updates that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. I want to share my support for these changes including:

– Protecting our shared groundwater by requiring that by 2028, all lands that ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Marc Robinson

7/09/24 @ 1:50 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Marc Robinson . I live in Northfield in Rice County. I care about this issue because I have grandchildren growing up in this a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Schmidt

7/09/24 @ 1:46 PM

Feedlots are a potential direct heavy source of pollution when not designed properly and with failsafes to avoid spills, discharges, and overflows. In addition, designed in a way to mitigate high precipitation events or flooding that are acts of natu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kristofer Coffman

7/09/24 @ 8:56 AM

As a farmer and fisherman, I believe that it is critically important that large animal operations are held accountable for responsible storage and management of their manure. The current system prioritizes low-cost commodities over the health of our ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Gabriela Santiago

7/07/24 @ 5:13 PM

I am glad to see some of the changes and updates that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits including: protecting our shared groundwater by requiring that by 2028, all lands that have manure applied to them in vulnerable groundwat...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Chris Herickhoff

7/07/24 @ 9:26 AM

I am concerned about requiring a cover crop on all fall applications of manure. In my situation I apply manure late fall. Typically a week before freezing. If I continue to apply manure late fall, will a cover crop be required? As I am not sure if th...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Margaret Merkow

7/05/24 @ 6:57 PM

I support regulations in the State of Minnesota that protect the citizens, animals and plants from pollution. In this case the pollution is run off from manure on large feed lots. I support laws to regulate these feed lots so they do not pollute, and...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kay Slama

7/05/24 @ 4:01 PM

I'm in favor of increased land application requirements, additional visual inspections, and more requirements for manure that is transferred to others to be land applied. Minnesota needs to guard much better against polluting our water.

No attachments

Comment From: Anthony Stans

7/05/24 @ 1:26 PM

As a resident of southeast MN I strongly support greater oversight of large feedlots in the Karst region. Feedlots are a primary source of pollution in our groundwater and streams in SE MN. Water quality testing of wells used for drinking by SE MN ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: James Salkas

7/03/24 @ 2:42 PM

I believe the new requirements should be set for a lower threshold of 400 AU. The MN Driftless area is a precious one and deserves special consideration and treatment due to its geologic vulnerability as a karst area and cold spring watershed.

No attachments

Comment From: Judy Moen

7/03/24 @ 12:26 PM

Thank you for allowing comments on this important issue. What could be more important than clean water? This is an urgent matter that needs your attention. Once water is contaminated, it is very difficult to find a remedy and taxpayers are forced to ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Conger

7/03/24 @ 11:36 AM

I appreciate these beginning efforts to manage manure's impact on water.

For any policy to have teeth, please strengthen the reporting requirements, and expand the need for monitoring to all lands that have manure applied.

Clean water is the most ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: howard markus, Ph.D., P.E. retired

7/03/24 @ 10:06 AM

One of the major environmental stressors associated with the land application of manure is when it runs off into rivers, streams, and lakes. The result is usually either fish kills from anaerobic conditions caused by the decomposition of the organic...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Valentine

7/02/24 @ 4:39 PM

I am glad to see some of the changes and updates that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. Many of them are commonsense ways to protect our shared land, water, and communities from the harmful effects of CAFOs, and I want to sha...↓re my support for these changes, including:

- Protecting our shared groundwater by requiring that by 2028, all lands that have manure applied to them in vulnerable groundwater areas must have either a growing crop, a perennial crop planted, or have a cover crop planted with 14 days of manure application if spreading in October and November. I also support phasing out winter application entirely in these areas.

- Protecting surface waters by limiting manure application within a 100-year floodplain to only application that incorporates the manure into the soil.

- Monitoring spreading by requiring the permit holder to do visual inspections of all land application areas.

- Helping with clean-up and accountability by requiring the permit holder to do water sampling after a manure discharge event.

- And making our rules consistent by requiring people who buy manure from a permit holding operation or who spread manure for one follow the permit requirements.

These new changes are a good start to what must be done to keep people and our shared water and land safe, but they also leave quite a bit of room for improvement. Here are some changes to your proposed permit that I think would make it stronger and would bring it closer to what people like me and my neighbors need:

- While protecting water sources in Minnesota's vulnerable groundwater areas is particularly important, all Minnesotans, regardless of where they live, deserve to have access to clean water. The additional requirements to the October, November, and winter applications of manure in vulnerable groundwater areas are good, commonsense management practices, and the requirement that those practices be followed should be extended to all lands where manure is applied.

- While it is good that record-keeping of applications — including water sampling and ensuring that manure buyers are following the rules — will be required to help make sure that permits are being followed, there needs to be a more robust requirement for permit holders to share this information with the agency. In addition, this information should be made available to the public. Communities that are at risk of CAFO pollution and its effects deserve to know that permits are being followed. Making this information publicly available will also allow community members to help the agency ensure that permit requirements are being met.

- In addition to water sampling and testing being done after a discharge event, this permit should require more proactive water samplings to ensure long-term compliance with the permit and to help ensure accountability. These permits should require water sampling and testing be done regularly around the permit holding site and where liquid manure from the site is being spread so that the agency and the public can know that long-term damage and contamination is not occurring. These permits should also require that new constructions of manure basins and new lands used for spreading undergo water sampling and testing before construction begins or manure is spread to establish a baseline nutrient load for future testing to be measured against.

I am encouraged by the steps the agency has taken to strengthen Minnesota's NPDES and SDS permits to help keep us, our communities, and our shared water and land safe. I hope that you can continue these steps and incorporate some of the much-needed changes I have shared here into your new permit. Let's make these new permits something that will protect all Minnesotans.

Thank you,

No attachments

Comment From: Cody Hoerning

7/02/24 @ 4:28 PM

To whom it may concern,

My name is Cody Hoerning. I am an agricultural researcher and I have worked extensively with nitrogen and phosphorus pollution as well as cover crops in my research to-date. I believe the current changes, as proposed, are nec...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Peter Hibma

7/02/24 @ 10:37 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jean Meister-Westermann

7/01/24 @ 9:02 PM

Please both strengthen the regulations on the large animal feedlots (both confinement barns and open feedlots).
Note that there are alternative approaches to big lagoons and spreading manure via irrigation systems and via manure spreaders. My famil...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Beth Rose

7/01/24 @ 5:08 PM

Dear Members of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

I am a simple Minnesota resident. I've lived most of my life in Minnesota, though I've lived in California, Texas and Alaska as well for a while. The most disappointing aspect returning to ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Suzanne Swanson

7/01/24 @ 2:29 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Suzanne Swanson. I live in Saint Paul. I care about this issue because I care about clean water for all in Minnesota.

I a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Andy Pearson

7/01/24 @ 1:54 PM

Dear agency staff,

I am glad to see some of the changes and updates that the MPCA has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. Many of them are commonsense ways to protect our shared land, water and communities from the harmful effects of CAFOs, ...↓and I want to share my support for these changes including:

- Protecting our shared groundwater by requiring that by 2028, all lands that have manure applied to them in vulnerable groundwater areas must have either a growing crop, a perennial crop planted, or have a cover crop planted with 14 days of manure application if spreading in October and November. I also support phasing out winter application entirely in these areas.

- Protecting surface waters by limiting manure application within a 100-year floodplain to only application that incorporates the manure into the soil.

- Monitoring spreading by requiring the permit holder to do visual inspections of all land application areas.

- Helping with cleanup and accountability by requiring the permit holder to do water sampling after a manure discharge event.

- And making our rules consistent by requiring people who buy manure from a permit holding operation or spread manure for one follow the permit requirements.

These new changes are a good start to what must be done to keep people and our shared water and land safe, but they also leave quite a bit of room for improvement. Here are some changes to your proposed permit that I think would make it stronger and would bring it closer to what people like me and my neighbors need:

- While protecting water sources in Minnesota's vulnerable groundwater areas is particularly important, all Minnesotans, regardless of where they live, deserve to have access to clean water. The additional requirements to the October, November, and winter applications of manure in vulnerable groundwater areas are good, commonsense management practices, and the requirement that those practices be followed should be extended to all lands where manure is applied.

- While it is good that record-keeping of applications, including water sampling and ensuring that manure buyers are following permit rules, will be required to help make sure that permits are being followed, there needs to be a more robust requirement for permit holders to share this information with the agency so they can ensure permits are being followed. In addition, this information should be made available to the public. Communities that are at risk of CAFO pollution and its effects deserve to know that permits are being followed. Making this information publicly available will also allow community members to help the agency ensure that permit requirements are being met.

- In addition to water sampling and testing being done after a discharge event, this permit should require more proactive water samplings to ensure long-term compliance with the permit and to help ensure accountability. These permits should require water sampling and testing be done regularly around the permit holding site and where liquid manure from the site is being spread so that the agency and the public can know that long-term damage and contamination is not occurring. These permits should also require that new constructions of manure basins and new lands used for spreading must undergo water sampling and testing before construction begins or manure is spread to establish a baseline nutrient load for future testing to be measured against.

I am encouraged by the steps the agency has taken to strengthen Minnesota's NPDES and SDS permits to help keep us, our communities, and our shared water and land safe. I hope that you can continue these steps and incorporate some of the much-needed changes I have shared here into your new permit.

Thanks.

No attachments

Comment From: Jeff B

7/01/24 @ 12:21 PM

After reading a lot of these comments, I realize most are coming from the twin city area. We all want clean water, and what is not understood is that as a livestock farmer, we are more responsible with Manure now than ever before. These same people p...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Peg Challgren

7/01/24 @ 12:13 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Peg Challgren. I live in Apple Valley, MN. I care about this issue because I care about our land and water.

I am glad to...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kay Slama

7/01/24 @ 11:01 AM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Kay Slama. I live near Spicer MN. I care about this issue because I drink water from my well, which uses groundwater downstre...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Amy Britt

7/01/24 @ 10:32 AM

I strongly support these changes to our permitting system to protect our water systems from contamination. Feedlots are unnatural polluters and should be more highly regulated.

No attachments

Comment From: Eileen Levin

6/30/24 @ 7:48 PM

I support these measures as a start toward protecting our land and environment from all the sewage, runoff, etc., from feedlots. Protecting our streams and rivers are public lands is most important more so than the rights a big business to have thes...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kathy Zeman

6/30/24 @ 3:55 PM

My name is Kathy Zeman. I farm all HE (highly erodible) land that abuts a tributary to Prairie Creek in Wheeling Township, Rice Cty. Because I have HE land, it's all in grass and I graze livestock. Because I have livestock, and I'm organic, I only us...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Matt Rohn

6/30/24 @ 3:31 PM

Thanks for citizen input into this important matter. I live in rural MN and am concerned about the state's steadily deteriorating quality of water because of various and growing agribusiness practices

I am glad to see some of the changes and updates...↓ that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. I want to share my support for these changes, including:

- requiring that by 2028, all lands that have manure applied to them in vulnerable groundwater areas must have either a growing crop, a perennial crop planted, or have a cover crop planted with 14 days of manure application if spreading in October and November. I also support phasing out winter application entirely in these areas.

- Protecting surface waters by limiting manure application within a 100-year floodplain to only application that incorporates the manure into the soil.

- Monitoring spreading by requiring the permit holder to do visual inspections of all land application areas.

- Helping with clean-up and accountability by requiring the permit holder to do water sampling after a manure discharge event.

- And making our rules consistent by requiring people who buy manure from a permit holding operation or who spread manure for one follow the permit requirements.

These new changes are a good start to what must be done to keep people and our shared water and land safe, but they also leave quite a bit of room for improvement. Here are some changes to your proposed permit that I think would make it stronger and would bring it closer to what people like me and my neighbors need:

- While protecting water sources in Minnesota's vulnerable groundwater areas is particularly important, all Minnesotans, regardless of where they live, deserve to have access to clean water. The additional requirements to the October, November, and winter applications of manure in vulnerable groundwater areas are good, commonsense management practices, and the requirement that those practices be followed should be extended to all lands where manure is applied.

- While it is good that record-keeping of applications — including water sampling and ensuring that manure buyers are following the rules — will be required to help make sure that permits are being followed, there needs to be a more robust requirement for permit holders to share this information with the agency. In addition, this information should be made available to the public. Communities that are at risk of CAFO pollution and its effects deserve to know that permits are being followed. Making this information publicly available will also allow community members to help the agency ensure that permit requirements are being met.

- In addition to water sampling and testing being done after a discharge event, this permit should require more proactive water samplings to ensure long-term compliance with the permit and to help ensure accountability. These permits should require water sampling and testing be done regularly around the permit holding site and where liquid manure from the site is being spread so that the agency and the public can know that long-term damage and contamination is not occurring. These permits should also require that new constructions of manure basins and new lands used for spreading undergo water sampling and testing before construction begins or manure is spread to establish a baseline nutrient load for future testing to be measured against.

I am encouraged by the steps the agency has taken to strengthen Minnesota's NPDES and SDS permits to help keep us, our communities, and our shared water and land safe. I hope that you can continue these steps and incorporate some of the much-needed changes I have shared here into your new permit. Let's make these new permits something that will protect all Minnesotans.

Thank you,
Matt Rohn

No attachments

Comment From: Aaron Rosenblum

6/30/24 @ 1:33 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Aaron Rosenblum, MD. I live in Minneapolis though garden and spend quite a bit of time in the St. Croix River valley. I care...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Erika Thorne

6/30/24 @ 11:24 AM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Erika Thorne. I live in Minneapolis. I care about this issue because I grew up in rural Iowa in the 50's & 60's: Family farms...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Leland Stoe

6/30/24 @ 9:43 AM

Thank you for working to protect our environment. For me, nature and our environment keep me whole. I am a fly fisherman, solo canoeist, hiker and nature lover. I also care deeply about our drinking water supply. I was devasted when the Rush Creek fi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Linda Gross

6/30/24 @ 9:21 AM

I am very concerned about protecting water quality and land resources throughout the U.S , and particularly in MN. Our state is famous for our lakes, rivers, parks and air quslity. We must use extreme care in strictly controlling rules and regulation...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Douglas Weiss

6/30/24 @ 7:46 AM

I support adoption of the NPDES and SPS Feedlot Permits as an important step forward in protecting our groundwater. However, much more needs to be done to protect our critical water resources.

No attachments

Comment From: John King

6/30/24 @ 7:24 AM

My family lives next to the Long Prairie River. Numerous studies have shown that the primary source of pollution in the river is from field runoff which is loaded with phosphorous. Also the river is underlain by shallow aquifers that are used both ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rom Madsen

6/30/24 @ 12:19 AM

I support the Land Stewardship Project position on these changes to feed lots. We need clean water! So we need to insist on better manure management. One way to help us have clean water is to not have feed lots with so many animals at all. It's n...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jeanette Torkelson

6/29/24 @ 10:25 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Jeanette Torkelson. I live in Minneapolis. I care about this issue because we all deserve and need clean water.

I am glad t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Micky McGilligan

6/29/24 @ 10:20 PM

Do the right thing. Please tighten regulations and inspections on Feedlots.

No attachments

Comment From: Keith Johnson

6/29/24 @ 9:44 PM

The best way to manage feedlot manure is to compost it before field application. Compost is a powder that incorporates into the soil, not solids that can wash away into creeks and streams. Composting retains the nutrients and removes the toxins. For ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kristen Anderson

6/29/24 @ 9:22 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. I am glad to see some of the changes and updates that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. Many of them are commo...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lorraine Rovig

6/29/24 @ 8:18 PM

Yes, pass these new restrictions. Please do everything possible to protect clean water in ground-level streams, lakes, sloughs, other bodies of potable water, and underground aquifers from feed lot runoff. Our lives and the lives of every living thin...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dean Borgeson

6/29/24 @ 6:44 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Dean Borgeson. I live in Crosslake. I care about this issue because I have a private well.

I am glad to see some of the ch...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Martha Krikava

6/29/24 @ 6:14 PM

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is Martha Krikava . I live in Grant, Minnesota _. I care about this issue because I value safety and preserving the environment. I live in a beautiful rural area and frequently visi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jim Bambenek

6/29/24 @ 6:11 PM

Please protect our precious water resources. Without clean water there is no life, period. All the money and good intentions will not bring back our clean water once it is gone !
Regards
Jim Bambenek

No attachments

Comment From: Paul Moss

6/29/24 @ 5:58 PM

Please consider the following comments:

I support some of the changes and updates that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. Many of them are commonsense ways to protect our shared land, water, and communities from the harmful ...↓effects of CAFOs, and I want to share my support for these changes, including:

- Protecting our shared groundwater by requiring that by 2028, all lands that have manure applied to them in vulnerable groundwater areas must have either a growing crop, a perennial crop planted, or have a cover crop planted with 14 days of manure application if spreading in October and November. I also support phasing out winter application entirely in these areas.

- Protecting surface waters by limiting manure application within a 100-year floodplain to only application that incorporates the manure into the soil.

- Monitoring spreading by requiring the permit holder to do visual inspections of all land application areas.

- Helping with clean-up and accountability by requiring the permit holder to do water sampling after a manure discharge event.

- And making our rules consistent by requiring people who buy manure from a permit holding operation or who spread manure for one follow the permit requirements.

These new changes are a good start to what must be done to keep people and our shared water and land safe, but they also leave quite a bit of room for improvement. Here are some changes to your proposed permit that I think would make it stronger and would bring it closer to what people like me and my neighbors need:

- While protecting water sources in Minnesota's vulnerable groundwater areas is particularly important, all Minnesotans, regardless of where they live, deserve to have access to clean water. The additional requirements to the October, November, and winter applications of manure in vulnerable groundwater areas are good, commonsense management practices, and the requirement that those practices be followed should be extended to all lands where manure is applied.

- While it is good that record-keeping of applications — including water sampling and ensuring that manure buyers are following the rules — will be required to help make sure that permits are being followed, there needs to be a more robust requirement for permit holders to share this information with the agency. In addition, this information should be made available to the public. Communities that are at risk of CAFO pollution and its effects deserve to know that permits are being followed. Making this information publicly available will also allow community members to help the agency ensure that permit requirements are being met.

- In addition to water sampling and testing being done after a discharge event, this permit should require more proactive water samplings to ensure long-term compliance with the permit and to help ensure accountability. These permits should require water sampling and testing be done regularly around the permit holding site and where liquid manure from the site is being spread so that the agency and the public can know that long-term damage and contamination is not occurring. These permits should also require that new constructions of manure basins and new lands used for spreading undergo water sampling and testing before construction begins or manure is spread to establish a baseline nutrient load for future testing to be measured against.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

No attachments

Comment From: Amy Crane

6/29/24 @ 5:15 PM

We are all part of this living miracle called Earth We need to do our best to take care of it I trust the Land Stewardship Project when they say manure management changes are needed The Dead Zones at the end of major rivers around the world are large...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Meg Anderson

6/29/24 @ 4:58 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. My name is _Meg___. I live in St Paul MN____. I care about this issue because we farm and are concerned about water contamination from ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jill Crafton

6/29/24 @ 4:24 PM

Thank you for expanding the visual inspections for down gradient field edges, tile intakes, water features, and any other potential point of discharge from the fields. I hope you will compile and use this information for effective decision-making. Th...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lisa Lunsford

6/29/24 @ 4:15 PM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representative,

I am glad to see some of the changes and updates that the agency has proposed for the new NPDES and SDS permits. Many of them are commonsense ways to protect our shared land, water and communities ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ruthe Thompson

6/29/24 @ 3:57 PM

As a resident of SW Minnesota where I often drive on farm roads and pass several confinements, I strongly support these proposed changes.

No attachments

Comment From: Janet NORDSTROM

6/29/24 @ 3:57 PM

I support any actions that will help protect our ground water! I think these huge animal farms can be a danger to our health in many way.

No attachments

Comment From: Lisa McCorison

6/29/24 @ 3:30 PM

Dear Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

Thank you for the chance to comment on this important issue. I live in Sturgeon Lake, MN. I care about this issue for many reasons, but most importantly, I think we have to care about keeping our waterways ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Paige Van Pelt

6/29/24 @ 3:23 PM

Thank you for taking my comment. I am a retiree in N Central MN who is most concerned about water quality. I have a part time job as an Aquatic Invasive Species Watercraft Inspector, and my supplemental income source requires clean water. I am also a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Fortunak

6/29/24 @ 3:21 PM

We do not want feedlots polluting the waterways .Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Tri M Farms Madson

6/27/24 @ 9:07 AM

It would be impossible to raise pork if we are not allowed to apply manure in the fall season after crops are harvested. Spring does not provide the opportunity to pump pits and get manure applied before planting must happen. Field packing, short tim...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tyler Scott

6/26/24 @ 8:59 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Mick Madson

6/25/24 @ 2:05 PM

We apply our manure on corn ground. The timing of application is so late no cover crop can start. If I had to apply in the spring no one would take it because of the damage and compaction of the seed bed. This would cause a huge economic hardship. Pl...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Byron Koehl

6/25/24 @ 8:13 AM

I do not agree with trying to limit fall applied manure. This is the best time for us as farmers to get it applied to our land. Trying to get it in the spring or when we have crops growing is a absolute nightmare.

No attachments

Comment From: Marty Rost

6/25/24 @ 7:40 AM

Attachments:

Download

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]