West River Dairy Expansion

Submitted By

1315 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Douglas Hauge

3/10/26 @ 4:36 AM

It is vital that the Riverview Dairy be required to submit an environmental impact statement. It is nearly twice as big as any current operations in the state, and its environmental harm would be enormous. Here's what we know now.

Massive water use...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Edwin garcia

3/10/26 @ 4:32 AM

Given the fact that the company has been sued for over usage of water, and not caring for the well being of it neighbors, I am saying no to the expansion.

It's a only a matter of time they drain the resources from the area and move on to the next st...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Wesley Sisson

3/10/26 @ 3:17 AM

I submit the following public comment regarding the proposed expansion of the West River Dairy operation. As a citizen concerned with environmental stewardship and the long-term sustainability of Minnesota's natural resources, I urge the MPCA to care...↓fully scrutinize this proposal and consider the substantial risks associated with creating what would become the largest concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) in the state.

Large-scale CAFOs pose significant environmental challenges, particularly in regions where groundwater, surface water, and rural community health are closely interconnected. The proposed scale of the West River Dairy expansion raises several concerns that warrant heightened regulatory review and public transparency.

First, manure management at this scale presents a serious risk to water quality. With thousands of dairy cattle producing millions of gallons of manure annually, the potential for nutrient runoff, nitrate contamination, and phosphorus loading into nearby waterways increases dramatically. Minnesota has already experienced widespread nitrate contamination in groundwater and harmful algal blooms in lakes and rivers due to agricultural runoff. Expanding the state's largest CAFO could exacerbate these existing challenges, if manure storage, land application, and monitoring systems fail or are overwhelmed.

Second, groundwater protection must be a central consideration. Much of rural Minnesota relies on shallow aquifers for drinking water. Studies across the Midwest have demonstrated that large livestock operations can contribute to nitrate contamination of groundwater through manure seepage, over-application on fields, or extreme weather events. As climate change increases the frequency of heavy rainfall and flooding, manure lagoons and storage systems face greater risks of overflow or leakage.

Third, the cumulative environmental impact of such a large operation must be evaluated, not merely the direct facility footprint. The transportation of feed, manure spreading over wide land areas, increased truck traffic, and air emissions which include ammonia and methane can affect surrounding ecosystems and nearby residents. Air quality impacts, odors, and particulate matter are well-documented concerns associated with high-density livestock operations.

Fourth, the scale of this proposal raises broader questions about agricultural sustainability in Minnesota. While dairy farming is an important part of the state's rural economy, the consolidation of livestock into extremely large operations can create environmental risks that smaller-scale systems distribute more sustainably across the landscape. The MPCA has a responsibility to ensure that economic development does not come at the expense of Minnesota's water, soil, and public health.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the MPCA:
1. Conduct a thorough and transparent environmental review of the proposed expansion.
2. Require rigorous groundwater monitoring and publicly accessible reporting.
3. Ensure that manure management plans account for extreme weather events and long-term soil nutrient loading.
4. Evaluate cumulative environmental impacts, including air emissions and watershed-level nutrient pollution.
5. Provide meaningful opportunities for public participation and community input before any final approval.

Minnesota's lakes, rivers, and groundwater are among the state's most valuable natural assets. Decisions regarding large-scale agricultural developments must reflect a precautionary approach that protects these resources for future generations.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Respectfully submitted,

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Keller

3/10/26 @ 3:11 AM

As someone who values protected areas and watersheds and all natural resources in general this expansion should not be allowed until a thorough assessment is completed. Furthermore, Riverview has shown that they overuse resources as evidenced by thei...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Grant Ascheman

3/10/26 @ 1:32 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Kathy Dunn

3/10/26 @ 12:58 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Alia McIntosh

3/10/26 @ 12:02 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Agnes Dieter

3/09/26 @ 11:57 PM

Rural Minnesota is constantly fighting to keep local business, agriculture, and resources protected and local. Allowing Riverview to monopolize the dairy industry is not conducive to the tenants that make rural Minnesota what it is. The pros — more j...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sylke Boyd

3/09/26 @ 11:36 PM

I am concerned about the impact of this facility on several factors: (1) the ground water supply, (2) pollution of the surface water shed, (3) increased traffic, (4) the welfare of the animals involved, (5) further degradation of the soil, biodiversi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Terry Maloney

3/09/26 @ 11:23 PM

This will affect everything and everyone in the area. It will suck the life out of the surrounding area where they get their water from and drain their manure to. Maybe not right away but when it does, it will be too late! They're big enough, there's...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Brandon Semel

3/09/26 @ 11:00 PM

This proposed dairy is enormous, and it will create waste and resource demands greater than entire towns. It would be irresponsible not to require an EIS be completed to ensure that the proper safeguards are in place prior to the approval of this exp...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cathy Solvie

3/09/26 @ 10:32 PM

I think the Riverview is large enough and already uses way too much resources to let this expansion happen. You need to think of the pollution that could happen and this expansion will only put more money in the pockets of people who have more than e...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Beth Kieffer

3/09/26 @ 10:31 PM

Where is all this water coming from? Where will all the manure be disposed of? Not a good move.

No attachments

Comment From: Benjamin Koehl

3/09/26 @ 10:19 PM

My name is Benjamin Koehl, I am a resident of stevens county, I have grown up with riverview dairys around my home all my life. Riverview has been a huge asset to the stevens county area supporting the community with jobs for electricians, plumbers, ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Andrew Falk

3/09/26 @ 10:03 PM

This must have an EIS. This is not farming but an industrial scale operation.

Riverview is nothing more than a corporate entity. It has Human Resources departments, accounting departments, logistics departments, lobbying efforts, all the things that...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Eric Zeltwanger

3/09/26 @ 9:40 PM

I fully support Riverview in the expansion of West River dairy. They maintain their sites impeccably and are great neighbors. I consider myself lucky to be able to see modern ag at its finest close to my home. Thank you

No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Hollinger

3/09/26 @ 9:06 PM

This proposed operation is the first of its size in Minnesota. It would be nearly double the size of the next largest operation in our state in terms of animal units. This makes it a fundamentally new and particularly powerful threat to Minnesota far...↓mers and rural communities.

Minnesota is already losing dozens of dairy farms annually due to inconsistent and often below cost-of-production milk prices. Massive dairy operations, like the one Riverview is proposing to build, have glutted the market and tightened Big Milk's stranglehold on the industry, allowing them to push small and medium-sized family farms out of business and off the land. This operation would only exacerbate the situation and accelerate the loss of dairy farms in our state, decimating Main Street economies in the process.

No feedlot has ever undergone an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in Minnesota. Each time the MPCA has determined that an operation should undergo one, the operator that requested the permit has withdrawn their application. And all of those operations that were determined to need an EIS were significantly smaller than Riverview's proposed operation will be.

If built, the Riverview operation would be allowed to pump up to 226 million gallons of water per year from an off-site well. For reference, the City of Morris, which is home to over 5,000 people, is permitted to pump up to 300 million gallons of water a year. Once constructed, the facility would produce 202,744,000 gallons of liquid manure and wastewater a year and 26,400 tons of solid manure a year.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has not yet completed a mapping of Stevens County's groundwater resources and aquifers for their County Geologic Atlas Series. In fact, they have not even begun the hydrological survey of the county. It is irresponsible to other water users and residents of the area to move forward with this permit without a full understanding of the potential impacts.

The Pomme de Terre watershed, where this expansion is proposed, is already considered a sensitive watershed. The MPCA already lists the two closest waterways to the facility, the Pomme de Terre River and an unnamed creek, as impaired, and this proposal would only exacerbate the impairment.

No attachments

Comment From: Ian Hoxworth

3/09/26 @ 8:48 PM

We don't need expansion of a plant that creates more environmental disasters.

No attachments

Comment From: Anna Kilian

3/09/26 @ 8:42 PM

Hello I am a resident of Stevens County and I have concerns about the new expansion of the Riverview dairy lot. I am requesting a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be made to help guide the planning of this expansion.

I have done a general ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Smith

3/09/26 @ 8:33 PM

The Riverview Dairy project must be required to get an Environmental Impact Statement.
I am very concerned of the impact the Riverview Dairy will have on the environment.
It is vital that the Riverview Dairy be required to submit an environmental i...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Tryon

3/09/26 @ 7:27 PM

The Riverview Dairy project must be required to get an Environmental Impact Statement. The potential for a profound impact on local water resources is too substantial to ignore based on data from other large animal agriculture projects. Please requir...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Melissa Swenson

3/09/26 @ 6:14 PM

This project is too large and potentially environmentally destructive to the area. Please make an informed decision by having a fair environmental study completed. Better to be safe than sorry.

No attachments

Comment From: Nathan Koehl

3/09/26 @ 4:51 PM

My name is Nathan Koehl and I have lived in the area surrounding existing sites for most of my life. We have never noticed any changes or negative impacts on our well water quality or quantity. We also have worked closely with sites in our area for m...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Emily West

3/09/26 @ 4:19 PM

Feedlots destroy land, water, and nearby residents' quality of life. Advancing permits without a full understanding of groundwater and water-quality risks is irresponsible. It is critical that the MPCA require a full Environmental Impact Statement.

No attachments

Comment From: Yeshwant Kethineni

3/09/26 @ 4:03 PM

Given Riverview's history of manure spills, water use and water overpumping, I would like there to be testing / research done on how this may affect water resources in the area

No attachments

Comment From: Diane Michelfelder

3/09/26 @ 3:56 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Maddie Brown

3/09/26 @ 3:08 PM

I am a concerned citizen from Southeast Minnesota. I appreciate the opportunity for public comment on this EAW for the West River Dairy Expansion. Based on the EAW, I see a clear obligation for MPCA to issue an EIS on this project.

The MPCA has the ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Bonnie Haugen

3/09/26 @ 2:28 PM

Bonnie Haugen comment on West River Dairy Expansion
Farming is Everybody's Bread, Butter, and Water. What I do on my hills affects water quality and quantity for Everybody.
I am a retired dairy farmer. Our family milked 100 – 200 cows 1994 until 2024...↓. Due mostly to unstable and low milk prices, we ceased shipping milk and transitioned to a beef farm.
The pressure from the existing large Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) dairies is causing harm to our milk markets for many farmers. They can flood the market, tip the market to a monopoly, and create unfair financial pressure on the existing farms. That pressure makes the milk income price fluctuate and unsustainably low. Farm families quit milking or sell the farm business. Therefore, our towns receive less business, and the community struggles.
A Full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed.
I was a member of the Southeast Minnesota Nitrate Strategies Collaborative Work Group. I learned about water quality and quantity issues during our meetings July of 2024 through June of 2025. One of those issues which comes to mind when I think of this permit application is related to the feed for the 18,855 cows. Certainly, containing and spreading the liquid manure has many concerns for people's safety, the high risk of contaminating water, air, and ground. However, I was surprised to learn that it is raising the feed that often causes more of a nitrogen problem. Corn, a major feed component of dairy cows, is a monoculture crop. When nitrogen is applied, its easily overapplied. Further, in these unprecedented weather events, a farmer may apply nitrogen pellets in good faith, but a rain of surprise timing and deluge can wash it away, polluting our water and giving the farmer cause to apply more fertilizer, risking more nitrogen going into our drinking water. Cover cropping, precision application, and following recommendations alleviate nitrate runoff and improves soil health. Yet, following regulations does not always protect our environment. Weather events can cause catastrophic overflows, cracks or leaks in structures and hoses happen.
A Full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed to better minimize the huge risks this huge business proposes. The environment and people in that region and watershed deserve a EIS be conducted with integrity.

Water tables, aquifers, streams, creeks, pathways do not abide by township, county or state borders. This proposed expansion is within five miles of eight different waterfowl and wildlife production areas. Allowing the pumping of 226 million gallons of water every year needs study. Can the aquifer handle that much additional drawdown and not cause issues of quantity or quality for the existing towns, rural wells, farmland, and rivers? Can the watershed survive? I think a full study needs to be completed before a decision can be made on permitting this size of an industrial agriculture business.
A Full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed.
Manure lagoons and miles of hoses also give me concerns for people and water safety. Lagoons of these sizes can be very risky. Man made structures fail eventually. But even if not often, when a hose or lagoon of these sizes leaks, the pollution is not easily or quickly cleaned up. The risks of this size need extra special study before permitting.
A Full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed.
There are not other CAFO's of this huge size in our state. There are studies showing the social and economic effects of CAFO's on our communities. Should we assume that those same effects will be the same except the impact will be huge, as the CAFO is huge? We should not make uneducated and unresearched guesses before allowing a permit for this size CAFO.
A Full Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Thank you for your needed attention to this critical nature of this threat to our environment and people.

Respectfully,
Bonnie Haugen

No attachments

Comment From: Gwendolyn Fassett

3/09/26 @ 1:49 PM

This Riverview-proposed expansion of West River Dairy MUST have an EIS before it goes any further. It would be the largest CAFO in the state, when we should be moving rapidly away from CAFOs toward more sustainable forms of agriculture. We can't af...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Danielle Green

3/09/26 @ 12:43 PM

As a Stevens County resident, I'm concerned about the potential environmental impact of the proposed Riverview Dairy expansion and think the MPCA should require a full Environmental Impact Statement before the project moves forward.

This expansion w...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Naomi Skulan

3/09/26 @ 12:12 PM

As a resident of Stevens County, I am incredibly concerned about the possible environmental impacts a dairy operation of this size would have. Without a full Environmental Impact Statement, we won't know the costs this massive operation would have on...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Gabriela Santiago

3/08/26 @ 8:32 PM

Minnesota is already losing dozens of dairy farms annually due to inconsistent and often below cost-of-production milk prices. Massive dairy operations, like the one Riverview is proposing to build, have glutted the market and tightened Big Milk's st...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Ellen Frame

3/08/26 @ 5:08 PM

The application of Riverview LLP is of such enormous proportions that a full Environmental Impact Statement must be filed with MPCA. Damage to the environment, local residents, and economy seems inevitable with such a monstrous, industrial entity in ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lizzy Haywood

3/08/26 @ 2:03 PM

The West River dairy expansion, proposed by Riverview LLP, is a project that must be preceeded by an EIS. The size of this project is something MN has not seen before and must be measured and evaluated through the accepted methods of an EIS.
I believ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cameron Berthiaume

3/08/26 @ 11:35 AM

I am concerned about the impact of this project and believe it needs a full environmental impact statement. I would also like to request a public meeting regarding this project if possible. As a Morris resident, this project is close to home.

Lookin...↓g through the documents and looking at the maps, I see that there are prairie conservation areas and at least one area important to birds (attachment 7c) - having ecologically significant areas nearby merits careful investigation of the potential impacts of such a large project. There are also lakes that support biodiverse populations (7d).Though page 53 of the EAW says that project areas were changed to avoid overlap, "...the DNR noted that the Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) identified one or more sites of Biodiversity Significance adjacent to some of the proposed manure application areas (Attachment 7d)... in all cases, these ecologically significant areas are outside the tillable fields designated for manure application." Even if manure application guidelines are followed, I believe the impact of areas adjacent to these ecologically significant zones warrants more investigation. Just because an activity does not take place directly on the ecologically significant land does not mean it will not affect said land - adjacent is still nearby enough to be important. I also see that some of the manure application areas are near the Pomme de Terre River, in some cases right up against it.

I am also concerned about the amount of water used. Hundreds of millions of gallons per year is an incredible amount that's hard to conceptualize. I am glad that there will be pumping restrictions, but these restrictions seem to target shorter lengths of time (years or seasons). More consideration must be given to the long-term impacts of utilizing the area's aquifers. When all the water use around the facility is considered (more ag and nearby communities), the amount is staggering. Is there data that can verify the water used by this facility won't deplete the aquifers faster than they can recharge?

Also, talking climate change - I read the section of the EAW on greenhouse gas emissions. Efficient practices and carbon sinks help, but they can't do it all. More cows means more methane.

My final thought - I would like to see more in-depth data on the hydrology of the area, including the aquifers. A fuller picture and better understanding of the area's groundwater resources must be gained.

I appreciate the work that has been so far, but a closer look is necessary.

No attachments

Comment From: Nate Hultgren

3/07/26 @ 3:37 PM

We write this letter in support of the West River Dairy expansion. Our family farms next to another Riverview dairy (Meadow Star near Pennock, MN) and can sincerely say that our experiences with Riverview have been positive for our family farm.

A...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Miriam Gieske

3/07/26 @ 3:30 PM

As a resident of Stevens County MN, where the proposed Riverview Dairy expansion would be located, I am concerned about its environmental impact and would like the MPCA to require a full Environmental Impact Statement before the project can go forwar...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sydney Bauer

3/07/26 @ 3:02 PM

As a resident of Stevens County I am deeply concerned about the environmental impacts that a project of this scale could have on my community, my state, and the downstream waterways. I think a full, thorough Environmental Impact Statement is necessar...↓y for a project of this novel size.

The GHG testing done in this EAW should account for the total number of cows in the facility, not just for the intended additions. An analysis of simply the increased number of cows DOES NOT equate to the total impact of the facility on water, land, and rural economy. If this facility needs 13,200 acres of farmland for manure application, this should be further looked into. The impacts of this facility will not just be within the confines of its property. I would like to see an EIS that takes into account how the 13,200 acres of farmland and their surrounding areas will be impacted.

The location of this facility is within the Pomme de Terre watershed, just 25 miles north of its confluence with the Minnesota River. The EAW does not provide enough detail into how this will affect our downstream neighbors from here to the Gulf. This EAW does not provide enough detail into how it will affect our water resources in Western MN.

As someone with dairy farming family members, I am also interested in this project requiring higher scrutiny for how it will impact small and medium sized dairy farms. Will this project impact the milk market in unsustainable ways? Will this project support local economies across the state in keeping their family farms afloat? What is the pattern of small and medium family farmers in Stevens County and the surrounding area?

I am also concerned about a facility of this size being granted permitting access without a full EIS because of Riverview's history of manure spills and water overpumping. This project will need 250 million gallons of liquid manure storage waste. I believe there should be scrutiny here to assess the impacts of this facility on communities, especially if these facilities have had already spilled their waste in our rural communities (Kandiyohi County). This EAW does not look at the impacts these spills have had on our communities. Riverview also just made an agreement with Arizona communities to pay $11 million dollars as a result of their overpumping the aquifer. This EAW does not look at the impact this facility will have on water resources with enough detail.

A full EIS is required to better understand the impact of this novel and impactful project. As a resident of Stevens County and someone who cares about considering the future of our local economy and natural resources, this project should require a full Environmental Impact Statement.

No attachments

Comment From: Jim Murn

3/07/26 @ 1:26 PM

I am in support of approving the Riverview LLP's proposal to expand their West River Dairy operation. As an agronomist for a farm that has worked with the Waukon Dairy in Gary, MN since its inception, I can't say enough good things about Riverview a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kimberly Bemis

3/07/26 @ 12:40 PM

I am extremely concerned about the run off from the lot entering local water ways. We will need mitigation strategies detailed, emergency plans in case of natural disasters, and continued testing of down stream waterways should this gain approval. Th...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Angela Anderson

3/07/26 @ 11:17 AM

This proposed operation is the first of this size in Minnesota. It would be nearly double the size of the next largest operation in our state in terms of animal units. This makes it a fundamentally new and particularly powerful threat to Minnesota fa...↓

No attachments

Comment From: perry skaurud

3/07/26 @ 11:16 AM

I am a farmer who works with Riverview Dairy in our area. They have been an incredible positive influence into our township, county, our churches, our schools. They do exactly as they say they will do. With this we have a very trusting relationshi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Borgen

3/07/26 @ 10:00 AM

I have been on site at multiple Riverview dairies and can't believe how clean and functional these sites are. I believe they are a value to the community and to the economy to the surrounding areas. Milk and cheese are part of the daily routine o...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Byron Wulf

3/06/26 @ 4:20 PM

My name is Byron Wulf, and I live and farm in Stevens County. I have been working with Riverview Dairy for over 20 years, selling corn and silage to them and buying manure in return. It has been a major benefit to my farm, as my products are used loc...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kaleb Koehl

3/06/26 @ 2:33 PM

My name is Kaleb Koehl, and I have lived in Stevens County for more than 26 years. During that time, I have seen firsthand the positive impact that Riverview LLP has had on our local community.

Riverview works closely with local farmers to produce t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Grant Visser

3/06/26 @ 12:34 PM

I beleive this expansion would be a benefit in many ways. I have personal experience with a different Riverview site and they have been nothing but good for the community. They support local farmers and even neighbors that don't farm. In my opinion a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Uli Koester

3/06/26 @ 10:45 AM

I am deeply concerned about Riverview LLP's plans to build a large new dairy operation in western Minnesota. This operation could hold up to 20,000 animal units. A dairy this size demands a full EIS by your agency. Please consider the pollution conce...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Emily Kelly

3/06/26 @ 9:15 AM

Commenting on the West River Dairy expansion; land use and impacts. Having massively unprecedented amount of bovines in one area will definitely impact the site land and surrounding areas in exponential ways. Ground water usage must be considered as ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mark Gutierrez

3/06/26 @ 8:47 AM

Industrial operations of this size should be required to get a permit and education on mitigating pollution via soil health practices, such as utilizing cover crops to prevent runoff and leaching of nitrates into our water supplies. In addition, the...↓

No attachments

Comment From: John Peck

3/05/26 @ 6:44 PM

I wish to strongly oppose this expansion plan for Ridgeview Dairy. We do not need to encourage more expansion of factory farms in our state - we need more small dairy farms, not larger corporate operations. There are only 2 dairy farms left in my to...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lucas Koehl

3/05/26 @ 3:25 PM

I am writing in support of the MPCA approving Riverview's Permit application to expand West River Dairy in Synnes Township. I have lived in Stevens County for 42 years, and currently live close by 2 of Riverview's dairy sites. Riverview's sites are ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Megan Horsager

3/05/26 @ 1:09 PM

I have worked closely with Riverview in Chippewa County for several years both by growing forage crops and helping on a harvest crew during silage harvest. Riverview has quickly become one of the most trusted names in our community and have continual...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Adam Koehl

3/05/26 @ 10:55 AM

I am a farmer that lives in close proximity to Riverview Dairy sites. They have been excellent stewards of the environment and take the utmost care to ensure that this continues. Manure is injected directly into the ground so that crops can quickly u...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Marissa Munsterman

3/05/26 @ 10:48 AM

I support the proposed expansion of this dairy. It's often the small things a business does that show how much they care about their community. Offering free cones on National Ice Cream Day is a simple gesture, but it shows the kind of relationship t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Heather Benson

3/05/26 @ 9:08 AM

When I look through the mandatory EIS categories found in Minnesota Administrative Rules 4410-4400, I find it almost laughable that I even need to write this comment to ask the MPCA to require this EIS. How could it possibly be that a facility housi...↓ng 26,000+ animal units producing over 250,000 gallons of waste PER DAY, drawing over half a MILLION gallons of water from my local aquifer and covering a physical plant footprint of over 1 MILLION square feet not be required to submit a mandatory EIS?

When I look through that list of mandatory EIS triggers, I see many things that would worry me far less than an industrial dairy facility:

Subp. 11. Industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities.
A. For construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing or light industrial facility equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space,
(1) unincorporated area, 375,000 square feet;
(2) third or fourth class city, 750,000 square feet;
(3) second class city, 1,000,000 square feet;

Subp. 14. Residential development.
A. 100 or more unattached or 150 or more attached units in an unsewered unincorporated area or 400 unattached units or 600 attached units in a sewered unincorporated area;

Subp. 15. Airport runway projects. For construction of a paved and lighted airport runway of 5,000 feet of length or greater

Subp. 22. Sports or entertainment facilities. For construction of a new outdoor sports or entertainment facility designed for or expected to accommodate a peak attendance of 20,000 or more persons or a new indoor sports or entertainment facility designed for or expected to accommodate a peak attendance of 30,000 or more persons, or the expansion of an existing facility by these amounts.

How could it possibly be that a sports stadium hosting 20,000 people (only 4,000 AUM FYI) only periodically need more environmental review than an industrial dairy holding 26,000 AUM 24/365? How can that be?

I am pro-farmer. I want Minnesota farmers to have the best chance to succeed in every way. But we need to recognize there is an important and fundamental difference between a local family farm that runs 223 cows (the average Minnesota dairy herd size) and 18,000. If a business wants to operate at an industrial scale, as Riverview does, then they need to be prepared to undergo industrial review. It is that simple. If you want to play with the big boys, then you need to play by big boy rules. This doesn't even mean anyone is trying to "stop" their business—it is simply Minnesota holding an industrial facility to the same laws and standards that other industrial businesses (and sports stadiums, ahem) must abide by.

No attachments

Comment From: Evelyn Benson

3/05/26 @ 8:40 AM

Riverview Dairy poses a great natural threat to the environment around it. They could completely uproot the entire ecosystem and cause small, honorable, family-owned farms around them to go bankrupt. They ethically should be reviewed for their propos...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sadie Pendaz Foster

3/05/26 @ 12:39 AM

As a Minnesotan and a social scientist who studies the social impacts of climate change and inequality, the recent history of CAFO expansion doesn't bode well for economic and social development, much less for the environment and our waterways. Syst...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Clark Koehl

3/04/26 @ 7:25 PM

Riverview has had a positive impact in our community in many ways. They offer countless job opportunities, purchase our crops, provide manure for our fields, and bring a positive, safe feel to the community. They go out of their way to build strong r...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ellen Rozek

3/04/26 @ 5:22 PM

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) must require the proposal by Riverview, LLC to undergo a full Environmental Impact Statement in order to analyze the potential negative impacts on water quality and quantity, local roads, and existing ind...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mason Koehl

3/04/26 @ 2:24 PM

I am in support for this dairy expansion because of the past history of how well they have taken care of the manure application, how they are great to work with as a neighbor. They care of the community and the well being of the environment. Great co...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Laura Inman

3/04/26 @ 1:18 PM

I am very concerned about the harmful effects of industrial dairying by Riverview, LLP. A concentrated animal feeding operation of over 20,000 animal units is a major strain on the environment and water resources. With Riverview's history of manure s...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Taylor Gramm

3/04/26 @ 12:48 PM

Dear MPCA,
I have lived in Hancock, MN area for 40 years, and worked in the Ag world for 25 years.
The Riverview system has been a huge benefit to our community by bringing in talented individuals, innovation to area farming and area businesses, and...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dayna Burtness

3/04/26 @ 12:10 PM

According to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 1, the MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects.

In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental
effects, the MPCA must co...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Connie Schad

3/04/26 @ 11:31 AM

To whom it may concern:
As a concerned citizen of Minnesota, I urge the MPCA to respect our ground water, our air quality and the smaller farmers who are trying to feed us.
Please perform an EIS!
Thank you!
Connie Schad

No attachments

Comment From: Kim Hiltner

3/04/26 @ 11:28 AM

I am writing to express my concerns with Riverview, LLP's proposal to build the first livestock operation in Minnesota to hold over 20,000 animal units. The MPCA must recognize the fundamentally new nature of this threat and give this permit greater ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rebekah Schulz

3/04/26 @ 10:33 AM

Dear MPCA,
I am writing with concern about the Riverview Expansion Act. I request that the proposal by Riverview must be required to undergo a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

This proposed operation is the first of its size in Minnesota....↓ It would be nearly double the size of the next largest operation in our state in terms of animal units. This makes it a fundamentally new and particularly powerful threat to Minnesota farmers and rural communities.

Minnesota is already losing dozens of dairy farms annually due to inconsistent and often below cost-of-production milk prices. Massive dairy operations, like the one Riverview is proposing to build, have glutted the market and tightened Big Milk's stranglehold on the industry, allowing them to push small and medium-sized family farms out of business and off the land. This operation would only exacerbate the situation and accelerate the loss of dairy farms in our state, decimating Main Street economies in the process.

No feedlot has ever undergone an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in Minnesota. Each time the MPCA has determined that an operation should undergo one, the operator that requested the permit has withdrawn their application. And all of those operations that were determined to need an EIS were significantly smaller than Riverview's proposed operation will be.

If built, the Riverview operation would be allowed to pump up to 226 million gallons of water per year from an off-site well. For reference, the City of Morris, which is home to over 5,000 people, is permitted to pump up to 300 million gallons of water a year. Once constructed, the facility would produce 202,744,000 gallons of liquid manure and wastewater a year and 26,400 tons of solid manure a year.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has not yet completed a mapping of Stevens County's groundwater resources and aquifers for their County Geologic Atlas Series. In fact, they have not even begun the hydrological survey of the county. It is irresponsible to other water users and residents of the area to move forward with this permit without a full understanding of the potential impacts.

The Pomme de Terre watershed, where this expansion is proposed, is already considered a sensitive watershed. The MPCA already lists the two closest waterways to the facility, the Pomme de Terre River and an unnamed creek, as impaired, and this proposal would only exacerbate the impairment.

Thank you for your consideration and attending to this matter.
Peace,

No attachments

Comment From: John LaFave

3/04/26 @ 8:47 AM

Please review this permit with extreme caution, it seems these big dairies only wreck our environment. There has never been any good that comes from having that many animals in one small location. If there was a sewage spill it would create havoc o...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Zink

3/03/26 @ 11:03 PM

We are very alarmed by the idea that Minnesota would harbor a massive dairy CAFO. The ecological impacts are many and serious; but the socio-economic impacts are also great. Minnesota is already losing dozens of dairy farms annually due to inconsiste...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Zink

3/03/26 @ 10:30 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Benedict Wagner

3/03/26 @ 8:43 PM

An operation this size definitely needs and EIS. It will use almost as much water as the city of Morris. Especially concerning are the nearby water sheds.

No attachments

Comment From: Rob Super

3/03/26 @ 7:28 PM

I am very concerned about near-term and long-term impacts of this project. Specifically, I share all the concerns being expressed by the Land Stewardship Project. I now live in Saint Paul but I grew up in a small community in northwestern Minnesota a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Amy Grace

3/03/26 @ 6:35 PM

This Industrial-Scale Projects Need Industrial-Scale Review.

This proposed operation is the first of its size in Minnesota. It would be nearly double the size of the next largest operation in our state in terms of animal units. This makes it a funda...↓mentally new and particularly powerful threat to Minnesota farmers and rural communities.

Minnesota is already losing dozens of dairy farms annually due to inconsistent and often below cost-of-production milk prices. Massive dairy operations, like the one Riverview is proposing to build, have glutted the market and tightened Big Milk's stranglehold on the industry, allowing them to push small and medium-sized family farms out of business and off the land. This operation would only exacerbate the situation and accelerate the loss of dairy farms in our state, decimating Main Street economies in the process.

No feedlot has ever undergone an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in Minnesota. Each time the MPCA has determined that an operation should undergo one, the operator that requested the permit has withdrawn their application. And all of those operations that were determined to need an EIS were significantly smaller than Riverview's proposed operation will be.

If built, the Riverview operation would be allowed to pump up to 226 million gallons of water per year from an off-site well. For reference, the City of Morris, which is home to over 5,000 people, is permitted to pump up to 300 million gallons of water a year. Once constructed, the facility would produce 202,744,000 gallons of liquid manure and wastewater a year and 26,400 tons of solid manure a year.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has not yet completed a mapping of Stevens County's groundwater resources and aquifers for their County Geologic Atlas Series. In fact, they have not even begun the hydrological survey of the county. It is irresponsible to other water users and residents of the area to move forward with this permit without a full understanding of the potential impacts.

The Pomme de Terre watershed, where this expansion is proposed, is already considered a sensitive watershed. The MPCA already lists the two closest waterways to the facility, the Pomme de Terre River and an unnamed creek, as impaired, and this proposal would only exacerbate the impairment.

No attachments

Comment From: Kay Drache

3/03/26 @ 5:16 PM

This proposed expansion would be nearly double the size of the next largest livestock operation in our state in terms of animal units. This makes it a fundamentally new and particularly powerful threat to Minnesota farmers and rural communities.

You...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Compassionate Action for Anima... (Laura Matanah)

3/03/26 @ 4:48 PM

Minnesota's largest dairy producer, Riverview, LLP, has applied to build the first livestock facility in Minnesota to hold over 20,000 animal units. If built, the facility will hold 18,855 dairy cattle, bringing the total animal units to 26,397 in on...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Yost

3/03/26 @ 3:46 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: John Gabbert

3/03/26 @ 2:33 PM

As a citizen of Winona County, where we have long fought a large dairy expansion situated on sensitive karst geology, I can really sympathize with the people near Morris where this Riverview expansion will dwarf all other confined animal feeding oper...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Robin Moore

3/03/26 @ 1:16 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Mary Polta

3/03/26 @ 12:23 PM

Please Let farming be human scale and animals treated humanely. Stop this.

No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Belgum

3/03/26 @ 11:46 AM

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

To Whom it may Concern:

I am deeply concerned about a proposal by Riverview LLP (Dairy) to expand it's operation here in my county: Stevens. This is a huge increase in animal units and will be producing a massive...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Menzel

3/03/26 @ 11:44 AM

As a Minnesotan I value our unique natural resources such as clean abundant water. Allowing a super mega dairy and cattle farm near Morris, MN would endanger our water resources, risk contamination of our wetlands and rivers, and force smaller to mid...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Myron Sylling

3/03/26 @ 11:34 AM

I am concerned to see this has not been addressed in government yet. A project of this size and scope should have a mandatory EIS performed. EAW's should be for smaller projects. This project affects so many acres that an EIS is a must to thorough...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Pam Hartwell

3/03/26 @ 11:33 AM

One of the many reasons dairy farmers are struggling throughout the state is that they have to compete with the benefits given, efficiencies and corner cutting of large scale operations. Large scale operations may make sense on purely economic level,...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Anderson

3/03/26 @ 10:52 AM

Please deny Riverview's application for expansion of their dairy farm. We already have enough nitrates in the ground water and runoff into streams and rivers are also a problem.

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Kennedy

3/03/26 @ 10:47 AM

This operation would use excessive amounts of ground water (a public asset) for any single business. We need to conserve not flagrantly over use this resource. This amount of animals will also produce a record amount of manure that will be disbursed...↓

No attachments

Comment From: James Tjepkma

3/03/26 @ 10:39 AM

I formerly lived among farmers in Southern Minnesota and have done various kinds of educational and service work with farmers both for pay and as a volunteer. Much of what I did focused on sustainable agriculture. I have also participated in action...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Evan Skaurud

3/03/26 @ 10:26 AM

My name is Evan Skaurud, I grow corn, sugar beets, soybeans, dry beans and alfalfa, and I have worked with RiverView Dairy for several years.
I receive manure from the dairy as part of my nutrient management plan. Before any application, my fields a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Faye Duvall

3/03/26 @ 10:25 AM

This large scale is against wise and environment best practices use of our land and water .

No attachments

Comment From: Audrey Arner

3/03/26 @ 10:05 AM

Wow, that's just too many cows in one spot! Because of my concern for the potential for contamination of the gifts of creation, especially including the waters around the proposed Riverview site, an EIS should be absolutely required for this enormou...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Nick Olson

3/03/26 @ 9:52 AM

It has come to my attention that Riverview Dairy is looking to expand their operation to a level that we have not seen before in Minnesota. As a small scale farmer in central Minnesota who is connected to a lot of other farmers in the region, we are...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Robert Walser

3/03/26 @ 9:50 AM

As a small-scale farmer (about 30 tillable acres) I am extremely concerned about the environmental risks of CAFOs. The concentration of wastes exceeds capacity for use as soil amendments resulting, historically, in lagoons, spills and environmental d...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Zaworski

3/03/26 @ 9:34 AM

Please do not allow such a monstrous operation. It will be destructive to our rural communities.
Thank you

No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Brandt

3/03/26 @ 8:57 AM

Just say no! This is wrong on so many levels. Small dairy farms need to be part of the MN fabric. Allowing this turns people into employees. We need INDEPENTED FARMERS in MN.

No attachments

Comment From: Kathleen Wold

3/03/26 @ 8:56 AM

Please require an environmental impact assessment of this massive project.

No attachments

Comment From: Mark Klinski

3/03/26 @ 8:55 AM

Being from SE MN , where smaller dairy farms ,less than 200 cows , are usual , we need some common
sense in regulations to control Massive CAFOs , flooding the milk market & running other farmers out of Business, Truckers also , & regional Processors...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jack Judkins

3/03/26 @ 6:26 AM

Large CAFOs do not have a good environmental record and are not more efficient than smaller operations. Should at the very least require an EIS. Groundnwater as well as run off pollution are real possibilities.

No attachments

Comment From: Paul Moss

3/03/26 @ 4:44 AM

Please consider the following comments:

This proposed operation is the first of its size in Minnesota. It would be nearly double the size of the next largest operation in our state in terms of animal units. This makes it a fundamentally new and part...↓icularly powerful threat to Minnesota farmers and rural communities.

Minnesota is already losing dozens of dairy farms annually due to inconsistent and often below cost-of-production milk prices. Massive dairy operations, like the one Riverview is proposing to build, have glutted the market and tightened Big Milk's stranglehold on the industry, allowing them to push small and medium-sized family farms out of business and off the land. This operation would only exacerbate the situation and accelerate the loss of dairy farms in our state, decimating Main Street economies in the process.

No feedlot has ever undergone an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in Minnesota. Each time the MPCA has determined that an operation should undergo one, the operator that requested the permit has withdrawn their application. And all of those operations that were determined to need an EIS were significantly smaller than Riverview's proposed operation will be.

If built, the Riverview operation would be allowed to pump up to 226 million gallons of water per year from an off-site well. For reference, the City of Morris, which is home to over 5,000 people, is permitted to pump up to 300 million gallons of water a year. Once constructed, the facility would produce 202,744,000 gallons of liquid manure and wastewater a year and 26,400 tons of solid manure a year.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has not yet completed a mapping of Stevens County's groundwater resources and aquifers for their County Geologic Atlas Series. In fact, they have not even begun the hydrological survey of the county. It is irresponsible to other water users and residents of the area to move forward with this permit without a full understanding of the potential impacts.

The Pomme de Terre watershed, where this expansion is proposed, is already considered a sensitive watershed. The MPCA already lists the two closest waterways to the facility, the Pomme de Terre River and an unnamed creek, as impaired, and this proposal would only exacerbate the impairment.

Thank you for your consideration.

No attachments

Comment From: Janet Lenius

3/03/26 @ 2:26 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Joshua Howe

3/02/26 @ 11:00 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Diane Johnson

3/02/26 @ 10:54 PM

Riverview, based out of Morris, Minn., is one of the largest dairy producers in the country. With barns and facilities spread across western Minnesota, Riverview, LLP already milks over 125,000 dairy cows in Minnesota alone. They also have a presence...↓ in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arizona. Now, they have begun the permitting process to build the largest CAFO in Minnesota, which could create a model of industrial dairying that our state has never seen.

An EIS will allow the proposal's negative impacts on water quality and quantity, local roads, and existing independent family dairy farms to be fully analyzed before the project is allowed to seek a permit. According to the documents filed by Riverview, the proposed operation would require:

- To supply water for the operation, pumping from an off-site well will be limited to 226 million gallons per year. For reference, the City of Morris, which is home to over 5,000 people, is permitted to pump up to 300 million gallons of water a year.
- Liquid manure storage encompassing 250 million gallons of waste.
- 13,200 acres of farmland for manure application.

Riverview has a recent history of manure spills in western Minnesota. In Arizona, the company recently agreed to deliver $11 million to residents affected by the dairy's overpumping. The proposed Stevens County site sits within five miles of eight different protected waterfowl and wildlife production areas and is part of the Pomme de Terre River watershed, just 25 miles from its confluence with the Minnesota River. A facility of this scale located in such a vulnerable area calls for a thorough environmental review

Just as importantly, an EIS of the West River Dairy Expansion proposal would address socio-economic impacts. Minnesota is already losing dozens of dairy farms annually due to inconsistent and often below cost-of-production milk prices. Massive dairy operations, like the one Riverview is proposing to build, have glutted the market and tightened Big Milk's stranglehold on the industry, allowing them to push small and medium-sized family farms out of business and off the land. This operation would only exacerbate the situation and accelerate the loss of dairy farms in our state, decimating Main Street economies in the process.

PLEASE do an EIS!!! This kind of project will do irreversible harm to our agricultural community for generations to come.

No attachments

Comment From: Alison Leathers

3/02/26 @ 10:31 PM

I am writing to ask for a full EIS to be done on Riverview, LLP(for the proposed 11,000-cow dairy feedlot in Section 1 of Synnes Township in Stevens County). An EIS will allow the proposal's negative impacts on water quality and quantity, local roads...↓

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]