HomeMy WebLinkAbout991634.tiff 1 r1_
W :.I D CCi_' . '
LIND, LAWRENCE & OTTENHOItt:P
ATTORNEYS AT LAW r-ni � f F,`I G1
THE LAW BUILDING •� `
101t ELEVENTH AVENUE
P.O.BOX 326
GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 1 EC _.
GEORGE H.OTTENHOFF TELEPHONE
(970)353-2323
KEN META F. (970)356-9160
KIM R.LAWRENCE TELECOPIER
JEFFREY R.BURNS (970)3561111
P.ANDREW JONES
June 29, 1999
Weld County Environmental Protection Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Attention: Jeff Stoll
Re: Hirsch Dairy (USR 1091)
Dear Mr. Stoll:
On June 25, 1999 I received your letter which is dated June 21, 1999. Your June 25"
letter was written to respond to my letter dated June 4, 1999. On June 25, 1999 I mailed a
second letter to you which included new information. Due to the fact that your letter dated
June 21, 1999 had administrative and factual inaccuracies, it is necessary that I reply. This
reply will correspond to your numbered issue and response.
Your response to issue No. 1:
You cite data from a May 14, 1999 Paragon letter that the Hirsch Dairy reported
receiving 7 inches of rain over 3 days. Based upon this information, you then conclude that
this rainfall was"far in excess of the design criteria specified in the Confined Animal Feeding
Operations Control Regulations" ("CAFO"). Apparently, you failed to review or ignored
CAFO Reg 4.8.3(B) titled Design Criteria which provides the standards for a concentrated
animal feeding operation constructed afterApril 16, 1974. This regulation clearly establishes
a 25-year, 24-hour storm event,which, in this case is 3.4 inches or more of precipitation that
occurs in any 24-hour time period. Rainfall records in the area of the Hirsch Dairy show that
the maximum participation in a 24-hour period occurred on April 27 through April 28 and the
maximum amount was 2.8 inches. I point out to you that Paragon cleverly used a 72 hour
figure which you mistakenly used to state compliance. The regulation does not provide for
a 72-hour time period and, contrary to your conclusion, this was a violation of CAFO as well
as the applicable USR.
-7
fin\ F:\KFL\LINDIENVIRON3.HIR 991634
Weld County Environmental Protection Services
June 29, 1999
Page 2
Your response to Issue No. 1 also curtly addresses the alleged discharge by again
referring to the May 14th Paragon letter. The Paragon letter states that a storm water or
process water discharge did not take place, rather the observed runoff was from the
cornfields. Obviously, Paragon Consulting was not aware of the May 2, 1999, 12:23 p.m.
memo in Weld County files in which Mr. Hirsch admits to intentionally discharging water as
his ponds and pens were full and were overflowing. (Copy of memo attached) Apparently,
you were also not aware of this memo or chose to ignore the memo. Inexplicably, you
accepted a May 14 letter from a consultant group without reviewing your own files and
records. Again, this is a violation of CAFO as well as the applicable USR.
Your response to Issue No. 4:
You failed to address the"free board" issue. Your only comment is that the dairy has
not been able to de-water the lagoon. Due to your failure to respond to this issue, I presume
that you admit that the lagoon is in violation of the free board requirements. This continues
to be a CAFO violation as well as a violation of the applicable USR. Additionally, due to the
fact that the May 14th request to apply water has not been approved, this apparently means
that the "free board" violation has been in effect for not less than 6 weeks.
I must conclude that you have not adequately addressed the issues, and in fact you
have failed to properly investigate and determine a violation. You have represented to the
Colorado Department of Public Health &Environment,the Board of County Commissioners
and the citizens of Weld County that you can apply and enforce the respective CAFO
regulations and USR standards. Unfortunately, I do not find that to be the case especially
in light of the May 2ntl memo in your own files. Further related to this May 2ntl memo is the
disturbing fact that Weld County Health & Environment officials were aware of the
discharges as early as April 29 or 30;they were again alerted on May 2ntl as to the continuing
discharges and this memo even went so far as to indicate that "He [Mr. Hirsch] will expect
to hear from us Monday or Tuesday." Monday or Tuesday was May 3'd and May 4`",
however, there was no inspection by Weld County or follow-up other than to send a letter to
the State on May 5, 1999: Weld County did not perform an inspection until June 16 which
is 6%weeks after the May 2ntl complaint.
As you are well aware that discharges from the dairy flow onto property and into water
structures owned by Lind Farms, Inc., it is curious and disturbing to learn that Weld County
representatives took no action or even bothered to perform an inspection. Some mediation
efforts could have been done to avoid the discharge from entering our client's property as
F:\KFL\LI N D\ENVI RON3.HIR
Weld County Environmental Protection Services
June 29, 1999
Page 3
you were alerted in advance, however, nothing was done. Quite clearly, Weld County has
failed to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
Very truly yours,
LIND, LA7N1.TTENHOFF LLP
Kenneth F. ind
KFIJcg
Enclosure
pc: Derald Lang, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environmental
Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorney
Glen Vaad, Weld County Commissioner
Monica Mika-Daniels, Weld County Department of Planning Services
F:\KFL\LIND\ENVIRON 3.H IR
From: Paul H Riesberg <Paul@Riesberg.com>
To: " 'rnewbrey@co.weld.co.us" crnewbrey®co.weld.co.us. . .
Data: 5/2/99 12:23pm
Subject: Hirsch on call complaint
c,.c o b
May 2, 1999 j l 2� 3 w <-K. -F S
To: File
From: Robin Newbrey - eo.}o N Z.O `L 0 je 1 s
•
RE: Complaint received on Hirsch Dairy discharge onto property West of
them. j o - to- 53 `6
Received On-Call 10:20 a.m. May 2, 1999 . .
Complainant: Jan Queen 686-5101 (neighbor to North) .
Called complainant 10:35 a.m. The discharge was not onto her property, she
saw it happening though, and was concerned. The runoff/discharge was worse
yesterday she thinks, hasn't really checked it today. Says their pens
aren't holding the water, and are leaking. I explained we would file a
complaint on the facility, but that there may not be much that can be done
because of the weather. She says the runoff has an "awful" odor.
•
Spoke with Mr. Hirsch by telephone at about 11:00 a.m. Mr. Hirsch was at
the facility. He has received 8 inches of rain in the last 5 days and is
trying to deal with the rain. If it continues to rain he will likely
"discharge" more because he can't land apply any more water (ground is
saturated+) and his oversized ponds, and pens are full and, were
overflowing. He doesn't know what to do with any more water. His foreman?
Mr. Briggs? left a message for Trevor Jiricek .Thursday or Friday warning us
that there was probably going to be discharge because his ponds were full.
He will expect to hear from us Monday or Tuesday.
Hello