County puts conditions on use of dairy data 
by Brian Wilson
The Star News
February 18, 2010 —  A compromise to allow the data from a different farm to be used as part of the nutrient management plan for a proposed 4,000 cow concentrated animal feeding operation in the Town of Little Black will allow the review of the plan to move forward.
Members of the Taylor County Land Conservation Committee approved the compromise after numerous amendments and more than two hours of discussion Friday morning in front of an audience of more than 30 people including representatives of the dairy and residents of the surrounding community. Friday's compromise vote brings to a close three months of discussion on if the nutrient management plan for the proposed North Breeze Dairy can use the actual test numbers taken from Lake Breeze Dairy or if it must follow the so-called book numbers established as averages through the University of Wisconsin.
CAFOs, as with all other dairy farming operations, must account for how they will dispose of the manure waste generated. This is most commonly done through spreading on fields. However, in order to protect groundwater and prevent over application nutrient management plans are required which designate which fields and what crops will be grown on them. Ideally, the amount of manure applied to the fields will be sufficient to meet the needs of the crops grown there without excess nutrients.
The developers of North Breeze Dairy submitted a nutrient management plan using the manure nutrient level numbers from their similar existing large-scale milking operation, Lake Breeze Dairy in Malone, near Fond du Lac. Opponents to North Breeze objected to using the Lake Breeze numbers because they are approximately 30 percent lower than the book value numbers and raised doubts about the plan having an adequate amount of acreage included in the plan.
The Department of Natural Resources already gave preliminary approval to proceed with the nutrient management plan using the Lake Breeze numbers because before spreading from the manure pits at North Breeze Dairy is done, testing will take place and the actual amount of spreading on any particular field will be decided based on that actual test data. Brian Gerrits of North Breeze Dairy has repeatedly said the manure generated at North Breeze will be comparable to that generated at Lake Breeze because the cows will be fed a similar food ration and be housed in similar conditions.
In December the issue was held over for further review and last month, an error in how the agenda was posted kept the committee from making a decision despite lengthy discussion and input by residents and those on both sides of the issue. At the outset of Friday's special meeting held at the Taylor County Courthouse committee chairman Dave Krug set the ground rules for the meeting. He limited public involvement but allowed comments from a spokesperson for each side of the issue.
According to Krug the purpose of the meeting was to decide which nutrient value numbers would be used to review the proposed nutrient management plan. A review of the plan which is required before the issuing of permits by the county to build a manure storage facility has been stalled for several months over this and other issues and the full plan approval will come before the committee at a later date.
The eventual decision to strike a compromise to “bridge” between the book values and the actual values of the proposed dairy almost did not get off the ground following a motion introduced by committee member Chuck Zenner to require the book values to be used.
Zenner said he did not understand why they would not want to just use the book values to make the process go smoother and guarantee they would have enough land on which to spread. “I feel it would be better to go with full book value on 4,000 cows,” he said. The difference between the numbers in the plan would require North Breeze to acquire more land through rentals or agreements in order to spread. This would result in additional cost for the dairy.
“We won't be bringing in 3,000 or 4,000 cows all at once,” Gerrits said, noting it would take time to populate the dairy and that they would only be spreading based on the actual values of the manure tests.
Committee member Scott Mildbrand attempted to introduce a motion to amend Zenner's motion and proposed a compromise plan. However, after some discussion including an offer from an audience member to use his copy of Robert's Rules of Order it was determined it would be better to address Zenner's motion and then deal with Mildbrand's proposal as a separate motion.
On a roll call vote, the motion to require the book values failed 3-2 with Zenner and committee member Donald Purvis in favor and committee members Mildbrand, Peterson and Krug opposed.
Door open for compromise
With the failure of a motion requiring book values, the path was open for the compromise resolution which had been worked out prior to the meeting by Mildbrand and Krug. Krug described the plan as a bridge between the book value numbers until they could get actual numbers from the dairy when it was in operation.
In stating the case for the resolution, Mildbrand explained he spoke with representatives from the DNR about how and why they had given a preliminary approval to the dairy using those numbers. It was explained that nutrient management plans are “living documents” in that they are subject to continual review based on changing nutrient levels and what types of crops will be grown there.
The compromise as it was introduced by Mildbrand allows the use of the Lake Breeze Dairy numbers but sets the following nine conditions:
1. North Breeze Dairy agrees to initially populate the North Breeze Dairy facility with no more than 70 percent of the proposed 4,000 cow herd (i.e., 2,800 mature dairy cows), until actual manure samples, including dry stack samples, from North Breeze Dairy can be taken and tested.
2. North Breeze Dairy will use University of Wisconsin and/or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources approved protocols and laboratories for both the sampling and analysis methods.
3. North Breeze Dairy shall allow Taylor County Land Conservation Committee along with a Taylor County Land Conservation Department (LCD) staff person to be present during the sampling procedures, and North Breeze Dairy shall provide Land Conservation Committee with 24 hours advanced notice of same.
4. Sampling will occur from the following points for at least three consecutive months following the introduction of the first 500 cows [Storage Basin #1 and/or Storage Basin #2].
5. When actual nutrient test data is available, North Breeze Dairy will update and adjust as necessary the North Breeze Dairy using actual nutrient test data from North Breeze Dairy and verified land acres available, and Taylor County Land Conservation Committee shall promptly review and within thirty (30) calendar days after North Breeze Dairy's submittal of the updated Nutrient Management Plan will approve or disapprove the revised Nutrient Management Plan.
6. Upon approval, North Breeze Dairy may increase the herd size up to 4,000 mature cows depending on WDNR approvals and the content of the revised Nutrient Management Plan. Variation of no more than one percent (1%) will be allowed over the 4,000 cow limit.
7. North Breeze Dairy will allow Land Conservation Committee and Land Conservation Department staff on the premises to periodically verify the number of mature cows.
8. Failure by North Breeze Dairy to comply with this agreement will result in penalties of $1,000 per day for each day of violation, payable to Taylor County.
9. This agreement will terminate when final approval of North Breeze Dairy Nutrient Management Plan has been granted by Taylor County Land Conservation Committee.
Krug said the compromise was being presented as a place to start and said it may not be acceptable to North Breeze Dairy's developers but would give a starting point. “We may have to go back to the drawing board,” he said. Following the introduction of Mildbrand and Krug's proposed compromise with the dairy, Zenner presented a list of questions and amendments which were voted on one at a time by the committee.
The first question Zenner had was why it was being introduced as a resolution and not simply an agreement. He noted resolutions are typically statements of policy, belief or appreciation and are not always enactments of statutes or ordinances. County attorney Steve Anderson said it did not make a difference as far as if it was a resolution or agreement.
Some of Zenner's amendments had to do with cleaning up and clarifying the language and passed with little discussion such as changing the references to cows and mature cows to animal units. State law and codes use the term animal units for consistency. Animal units is a measure based on the average amount of manure generated by the animal. Using animal units, the dairy will be 5,600 animal units and the 70 percent requirement would be 3,920 animal units.
One amendment which was rejected by the committee called on adjustments to be made to account for precipitation. “While the facility might be built for 5,600 animal units, and manure produces at a reduced rate due to reduced sticking, precipitation will fall on a full facility, thus diluting the manure beyond what a full facility would occur. It should be relatively simple to estimate the gallons of precipitation that would find its way in the lagoons, and with records of the number of animal units to determine the increased dilution rate. It could be expected that significant amounts of precipitation could be present even before the first manure reaches the lagoons, thus diluting the first samples,” Zenner stated.
That is not so easy to do said Paul Sturgis, an engineer hired by North Breeze Dairy to prepare the nutrient management plan. He said the goal would appear to be to try to take it back to what came out of the cows which is not possible nor is it practical to do. Krug also objected to a proposal noting that even on traditional smaller dairy farms, it is common to use whey, discarded milk or other liquids to wet down the manure before spreading can occur. The amendment asking for adjustment based on precipitation failed 3-2 on a voice vote.
There was some debate over an amendment to require signed contracts for the land to be included. According to Sturgis and Gerrits, those agreements are already part of the plan and are in the possession of county conservationist Steve Oberle. However, there was disagreement of what constituted a contract versus a signed agreement versus a verbal agreement and it was noted that typically in farming many agreements are verbal and signed with a handshake. Gerrits said all the agreements in the plan were signed and Anderson said for the purposes of the resolution agreement contract and agreement were the same thing.
Another amendment from Zenner that was approved changed the penality from $1,000 per day to $7.50 per animal unit per day over 3.920 animal units. Zenner explained his reasoning for the change as follows: “$1,000 per day would yield a fine of less than 85 cents per cow per day at full stocking. Feed costs make up 35 to 50 percent of the the total cost of producing milk. With milk at $14 or greater and cows giving 90 pounds of milk, there is incentive to ignore the fine and stock the facility if the opportunity arises. As an example, it took Kingdom Farms in Marathon County just one day to move 1,000 plus cows into their new barns.” No objections were raised to the amendement and it was passed.
The final amendment proposed by Zenner called on the agreement to be signed by the entire board of North Breeze Dairy. It initially called on it to be also signed by the dairy's attorney David Crass, however Anderson noted that the attorney is not a party to the agreement and that the attorney for the dairy would not sign it just as he would not sign it from the county side.
Following the approval of the amendments, committee members went back to discussing the agreement and amendments and Oberle, who went on record opposing the use of the Lake Breeze numbers, raised the question of if the committee was comfortable in his words with approving the agreement without having all the information. Oberle raised doubts about the testing data submitted from Lake Breeze Dairy noting it only came from certain testing spots and not all of them. He said he thought Gerrits was going to bring the additional data with him and called on the committee to hold off making a decision until it could be reviewed.
Gerrits responded that he had the additional information Oberle requested in his vehicle and offered to go down to the parking lot and retrieve the two-foot thick stack of documents backing up their testing numbers. He said he and other members of the North Breeze/Lake Breeze group were ready to take time to review all the requested documents with Oberle.
Oberle's continued objections to even consider the use of the Lake Breeze numbers drew criticism from Krug. “When will this end?” Krug said, noting that it appeared Oberle was continually finding new things to hold up the process. Oberle responded that he was doing his job to make sure the committee was fully informed.

Closing statements
Prior to voting on the agreement as amended, Krug opened the floor up to closing statements by Steve Suchomel a spokesperson for the Town of Little Black and Gerrits.
In an emotional statement, Suchomel called on the committee members to remember who they serve and to look out for the ground and water quality in Taylor County and noted the county was not going to be sued over any decision made by them to reject the use of the numbers and likewise that if the numbers from Lake Breeze were or were not used it would not delay construction because other permit approvals must be received. He alluded to the concerns that the dairy would over-stretch water resources available in the area and called on the committee not to take the land and water resources of Taylor County for granted.
He closed with an emotional appeal of the quality of life impact of the dairy. “I still want to be able to have a picnic in my backyard with my granddaughter without getting stunk out,” Suchomel said.
Gerrits spoke on behalf of North Breeze, reiterating the family farming heritage of those who own and operate Lake Breeze Dairy and the proposed North Breeze Dairy. “I'm a third generation farmer,” he said noting the dairy wants to be good neighbors in the community. He praised the efforts of the committee in reviewing the plan and coming up with a workable compromise.
Following the statements, Krug opened the floor to Dan Miskulin an area resident who called on the committee to grant the public a chance to speak on the proposed compromise agreement. “How can we compromise if we don't have all the facts,” he said. However, the suggestion to open the floor to other speakers fell on deaf ears and the committee called for the question of the motion passing as amended on a 4-1 vote with Peterson, Mildbrand, Zenner and Krug in favor and Purvis opposed.
While voting to allow the use of the Lake Breeze Dairy data with conditions constitutes a major win for the dairy developers, it is just one step in the process and it was specifically noted it does not even guarantee the county will approve the dairy's final nutrient management plan.
According to Gerrits, the permitting process is continuing at the state and county level and he said typically for these types of projects all the permits are approved preliminarily until they are all completed because they are so intertwined and when they are all completed, the permits are issued at one time.
With water issues still very much in the forefront for those opposed to the large dairy locating in Little Black, the committee's action represents a setback, but there are other areas where they are questioning the dairy.

Return to main
Go to next story