Neighbor appeals farmer's expansion plans

Farmer wants to expand, but a neighbor says, not so fast.

The number of cows on Jay Noble’s farm is set to increase and Audrey Van Dyke, who lives across the street, has a problem with that.

Noble, who lives at 21721 Plank Rd., planned to expand the number of cows on his farm from 320 to 517 in October. Van Dyke appealed the permit because the nutrient management plan was not adequate for the number of cows allowed by the Racine County Permit.

The Livestock Siting Review Board, a state level board that handles appeals, sided with Van Dyke and overturned the permit because Noble needed one acre of land for every animal unit he has. With one cow equaling 1.4 animal units, Noble needed 800 acres. He owns 250 acres and rents another 550, he said.

Noble reworked the plan, resubmitted the application and again was given the permit in Racine County. Van Dyke still maintains the plan is faulty.

“I’m trying to fill up my barns to the capacity of which they were built,” Noble said.

Noble started the farm from scratch and opened in October 2007, but the land has been in his family for 150 years.

Noble believes Van Dyke just doesn’t want a dairy there at all.

“I invited her up here with people from the Racine County Land Conservation Service and explained why we do what we do and she drew her own conclusions,” Noble said. “A lot of what people are focusing on is the manure, but they aren’t focusing on the extremely cheap food I’m making for consumers.

“Less than one percent of population is making food for this country. We’re producing food and putting the milk on Audrey’s table every day. Everyone wants cheap food and fuel, but not in their back yard.”

When called to discuss the issue, Van Dyke said that all of what needed to be said was in her appeal.

In her statement of the issues, Van Dyke stated the application used to obtain the permit was not credible, consistent or complete; failed to meet state or county standards and state goals; and that the livestock facility creates a threat to public health and safety.

Van Dyke alleges that the existing storage facilities needed to be certified by a professional engineer, but when she called the engineer listed on the 2009 application he told her he certified the facilities in 2008 and “did not know if the conditions to which he certified were still true,” Van Dyke stated in the appeal.

Other points of contention included:

• The gap between the amount of manure generated and the amount applied was 4,853,335 gallons, which exceeds the storage capacity of the facility and similar gaps exist in at least three prior years.

• The application did not include acreage currently available for land spreading of the excess manure, as there is no acreage available for land spreading of the 4,853,335 gallons generated in 2009.

• There were no maps showing where the excess manure would be applied, nor does the application have consistent acreage for the fields.

• Multiple locations in the application containing annual field nutrient plans that do not agree with each other. The plans also do not agree with what is actually occurring.

But Noble believes Van Dyke has misinterpreted the management plan since day one.

“I know I have the right plan, I firmly believe you are only as good as the people you work with

and I worked with certified agronomists and certified engineers for my plans during the whole process.

If Noble does not receive the permit, it means he can’t have over 500 animal units and he won’t have any restrictions at all on how he spreads the cow manure.

“If I don’t receive the permit, I can spread it around 365 days a year when and where I want. It’s a guideline. If I’m not permitted, I’m unrestricted. It’s required that for this permit that I have a nutrient management plan,” Noble said. “But it’s not required for me to have this for my operation.”

The Review Board will take up the appeal at their August meeting; in the meantime they will accept comments from the county, Nobles, residents and landowners within two miles of the proposed operation. Any statements received will be reviewed by the board as part of their decision-making to uphold or overturn the decision of the County Board.  No new arguments or evidence will be accepted.

Statements may be sent electronically to DATCPsitingboard@wisconsin.gov by July 31, 2009. Mail statements and copies to LFSRB, Attention: Cheryl Daniels – Legal Section, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911 by July 31, 2009. For a copy of the appeal request submitted by Audrey Van Dyke, contact Cheryl Daniels, (608) 224-5026 or send e-mail to cheryl.daniels@wisconsin.gov.