By Wally Kennedy

wkennedy@joplinglobe.com

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — An appeal of the construction and operating permits for the Ozbun CAFO near Roaring River concluded on Friday with statements from Michelle Ozbun, owner of the CAFO, and Kaye Smith, a member of the Roaring River Park Alliance.

After hearing two days of testimony in which her 65,600-chicken CAFO was repeatedly attacked for being in the wrong place and improperly permitted, Ozbun said, “I followed the regulations and did what I should have to make everybody happy. None of the litter has gone into the watershed.

“I have tried to keep everything clean. I just can’t make everybody happy.”

Smith, a resident of Pierce City with property near the park, said, “I believe you are completely sincere and did all of the right things. But our loyalty to the river and Table Rock Lake is personal to us.”

Smith said members of the alliance are fighting for the river because they are not only concerned about water quality, but air quality, tourism and the devaluing of their properties to “satisfy the lust of the meat-processing industry.”

She said the Missouri Department of Natural Resources should know by now that “citizens across the state are experiencing an epiphany” regarding the negative impacts of CAFOs. She said, “There must be common ground somewhere.”

Until then, she said the alliance will stay the course and carry out its “mission to preserve, defend and protect our state parks. By the way, those words were taken verbatim from the DNR’s own mission statement.”

Smith’s statement concluded the hearing before John Kopp, a commissioner with the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission. Kopp is expected to issue recommendations about the permits to the Missouri Clean Water Commission in April or May. At that time, the commission could accept, reject or ignore his findings.

Though Kopp permitted testimony about air emissions from the CAFO to be entered into the record, he said he only has jurisdiction over issues related to water quality. The testimony about air emissions and their potential impact on the river was permitted because the opponents of the CAFO intend to continue the legal appeal.

On Friday, Kopp heard more than three hours of testimony from Derrick Steen, who managed the permit for the Water Pollution Control branch of the DNR. He was repeatedly asked to explain provisions of the permit related to the completeness of required construction drawings and the required compaction tests for the clay floors below the barns at the Ozbun CAFO.

He said construction drawings for the CAFO were no different from any of the other construction drawings for the dry-litter operations he has approved for the department. On Thursday, an expert witness said those drawings amounted to “to four rectangles on a piece of paper” when blueprint drawings should have been submitted.

He said no tests were done to confirm that the clay floors in the barns were compacted in manner that complied with state regulations.

He said the permit does not require Ozbun to account for what happens to the 475 tons of chicken litter that were hauled away from the CAFO by a third party last year and spread as fertilizer on nearby farmland. He said no permit is required of the people who spread the litter.

He acknowledged the issue of litter being spread in the Roaring River watershed was brought to his attention in an e-mail from another DNR employee, Scott Gordon, who said the permit needed to contain a provision that required the reporting of the location of where the litter was spread and the method in which it was spread. Steen said the e-mail was copied to his boss, Rob Morrison, head of the DNR’s Water Pollution Control branch.

Steen said Morrison responded with an e-mail that said, “Scott, thanks for the feedback.”

Steen said Gordon left the department and that it was his understanding that he had resigned.

Under cross-examination, Steen said he did not think the department could require such a provision in the Ozbun permit. He said he was unaware of any regulation that would prevent the department from doing so.

John Price, the attorney for the alliance, said it appeared the entire premise of the permit was that it was a no-discharge operation in terms of an impact on the waters of the state. Price asked about the dust, pathogens and airborne chemicals, such as ammonia, that are blown from the CAFO by large fans. He questioned whether those airborne particles could accumulate on the ground and be washed into the river when it rains.

Price said the permit must take into account all of the processed waste generated by the CAFO, including airborne particles. Steen said the permit process has never been interpreted in that fashion.

Price asked whether he had consulted with anyone in the department’s air quality program about the issue. Steen said he had not because his concern is related to water. He said the issue was raised by local residents in comment letters to the DNR, but they were told his branch of the DNR has not control over that issue.

Steen was asked whether he had consulted with the state parks division about the permit.

He said he had not. He was asked whether he had considered endangered species, including rare crayfish that exist in the watershed. He said he had not.

A representative of the department’s air-pollution control program testified there was no directive to require any air permits for CAFOs in Missouri, but she said the state could develop its own emission factors for CAFOs in Missouri. She said the state could monitor emissions from existing CAFOs to develop those emission factors.

Jerry Prewett, with the DNR’s division of geology and land survey, testified that he visited the Ozbun CAFO to assess whether it was a suitable site for a CAFO. His assessment showed the soil at the site had moderate to high permeability, which was contrary to the findings of an expert witness who testified on Thursday. That witness, Robert Lanning, a geologist like Prewett, said the soil had low permeability and that the soil would rapidly shed water when it rained. Waste on the ground around the CAFO, Lanning said, would move unhindered into two nearby creeks that converge and flow into Roaring River downstream from the state park.

Prewett said he and Lanning were not soil scientists and, therefore, not “technically savvy in that area.” He said he observed soil in four open pits on the Ozbun property and that Lanning observed the soil near a ditch near the Ozbun property. He said his observation was more accurate that Lanning’s because he examined soil at the CAFO and Lanning did not. He said he conducted no soil tests, but offered only observations about the condition of the soil.





Joplin resident

At the conclusion of the hearing, Mark Stephenson, a Joplin resident, said he was pleased that the alliance was able to make its case against the CAFO and that testimony was allowed in issues unrelated to the water permit. “But I’m disappointed that the water issue is the only issue the commission can take into consideration — only that and nothing else — because there’s so much more involved here than just that,” he said.