There has been a huge amount of ill will generated across the country by CAFOs -- they promise a dream but deliver a nasty nightmare that holds large regions hostage to their will.  Many communities' economies, health, and environments have been torn apart by CAFOs.  Despite this, CAFOs continue to promise that they will use "state of the art technology" to minimize any and all problems.

The truth is, there IS no "state of the art technology" to protect us.  As rural economist Dr. William Weida writes his readers on 19 January 2003:

... I am attaching a new paper which is really a synopsis of the National Academy of Sciences Air Emissions Study.  I have told several of you already that I regard this as the single most important paper ever written on the issue of air pollution and CAFOs.  That is a pretty broad statement, so here is why I feel as I do:

In the past, we all have participated in a number of permitting hearings.  Comments on these permits usually focus on the weaknesses in the applicant's application and on omissions in the application that concern health, water pollution potentials, etc.  However, as the permitting process proceeds, everyone generally signs on to the underlying assumption of the permitting process--that projects may be approved subject to specific limitations or constraints imposed by the permitting authority.  These constraints will protect the public and their implementation can be checked by monitoring by local authorities.  We all know that the monitoring part is really a crock, but I would wager that you, like me, have suggested that it is unreasonable for local citizens to have to self-report violations of air or water pollution, and that if a project is approved, it should only be approved if there is a willingness on the part of the authorities to fund a force of inspectors who can keep an eye on the situation.

This is all well and good, but I would point out that arguments such as this still subscribe to the underlying assumption of permitting--that if we could just check on things adequately, the polluters would be put out of business or forced to clean up, and the public would be protected. [Emphasis is ours.]

Now, along comes the NAS study.  In this study, the authors have demonstrated that the entire method currently used to calculate emissions from CAFOs is fatally flawed.  They have also demonstrated that no valid method of calculating emissions exists to replace the one we now use.  In other words, they have shown that the fundamental assumption underlying permitting  cannot be applied in the case of CAFOs and air quality.... [T]he fundamental point is this:  if the permitting process is dealing with a  substance (air pollution) that cannot be measured or modeled in a scientifically credible manner, then there is no basis for issuing a permit because the purpose of permitting--the protection of the public--cannot be fulfilled.... [Emphasis is ours.]

Buildings going up on the Hartford Township side of the road
23 May 2004

The DEQ (Michigan's Departmentof of Environmental Quality) admitted in a closed session in Lansing (May 2004) that it has never rejected a permit for a CAFO.  Slowly, with enormous effort and little gain, Michigan along with other states will eventually be forced to change outmoded laws and dangerous loopholes in regulatory departments like the DEQ and the Department of Agriculture.  Unfortunately, that may be be too late for many rural communities trapped by these CAFOs and their pernicious, yet "legal," practices.

In light of all this, we issue an open invitation to the den Dulk family:

The DEQ is unlikely to reject your permit since, as they have admitted, they have never done so in the past.  We therefore ask you to withdraw your request for a permit.  You are said to be the second largest dairy CAFO in the country so you obviously have great financial resources. We are not asking you to give up the properties you have purchased in Hartford and Keeler Townships.  Rather, we are suggesting that you consider truly exploring "state of the art technologies" by establishing a cutting-edge agricultural college on the beautiful land you now own.

Create those new technologies and generate good will, not ill will, among your neighbors across the country.  Find ways to generate reasonable income while at the same time protecting the environment and quality-of-life issues for your neighbors as well as for your animals.  Think outside the box -- find new ways -- explore -- be creative -- bring the brightest and the best from all across the country to Hartford.  Offer scholarships to children of families who have been most harmed by your current farming practices.  Bring in top scientists and ethicists.  Set the standard for all future agricultural practices in a humane yet profitable manner.  It can be done, with human ingenuity, daring, and vision.

Privately owned Land in Keeler Township across the road from the preceding photo --
notice how green, gracious,  and lovely it is -- this is how it should be.
23 May 2004

The land you have purchased in our county is beautiful, gently rolling country.  It would make an ideal site for a world renowned college.  It would generate prestige and profit for you, and prestige and profit for the townships of Hartford and Keeler, far in excess of the 12.5 million dollars you currently anticipate.  Your college would attract students from all over the world, seeking solutions to sustainable agricultural practices.

Please consider this win-win solution.  Let this be the beginning of a new era of cooperation between us.

Concerned Citizens of Hartford
Memorial Day, 31 May 2004

To a lengthy report by economist Dr. William Weida

Back to our Michigan / Factory Farms page