Another year, another algal bloom in Lake Erie's Western Basin.

[Indiandad]

Activists say: More scrutiny of CAFOs needed

With the prospect of another large harmful algal bloom in Lake Erie looming, environmental activists in Northwest Ohio are focusing their attention on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and the large amounts of manure they generate as a source of phosphorus making its way to the lake.

www.presspublications.com

Here is another good article.

This one points out the difference with how most farmers apply fertilizer and how CAFO's dispose of it (topical application by hose).

Manure produced by CAFO's in the Maumee watershed jumped from 3.9 million tons in 2005 to 5.5 million tons in 2018.

Indiandad, you have told us many things on here but have not refuted anything through fact. It is easy to question all of the information I have provided, call it bad science or innuendo and then provide nothing on your end except opinion.

* I've read a bunch of articles on the subject and have never once heard of the term "legacy phosphorous." You would think that one of these scientists from these organizations or even a farmer would bring it up. They have not.

* Dredged material from the Maumee is dumped on man-made islands in Maumee Bay call "facilities." There may be places where dredged material is applied to farm fields but it is not from the Maumee.

* WWTP do not remove phosphorous. They do.

* Phosphorous cannot be moved by water alone. Completely wrong. In your argument, phosphorous can be dumped into the lake by even treated waste in Toledo, but anything applied from all of the waste produced by CAFO's in the watershed is stored and applied perfectly back into the ecosystem (wrong).

* This is a major problem and it would appear to me that all people involved, including local farmers want to find a solution. Antiquated WWTP's are being updated. Local farmers are creating buffer zones on their properties. In fact, local farmers are applying phosphorous based off of how much is already in their soil which is usually a one time shot of nutrients and round-up (which cannot get rid of Mare's Tale). I know the farmer in the article. When talking to him, he does not sound like you. Now you sound like a climate change denier and have simply attacked every article and all the science behind them. If this problem pointed to WWTP's I'd be up in arms and focused on them. It does not.

I want this thing solved because I watch this beautiful lake go from clear to pea soup around Aug 1 every year and everything I read points to CAFO's.

This is precisely what I'm talking about.

You post an article Headlined with "Activist Say..." People don't want facts, data or science. It is boring. They want emotional appeals. They work.

I have given you the science. You choose to ignore it and prefer emotional articles.

So be it.

 

[irish_buffalo]

Activists can provide facts. They are in the article. Other facts are in the article as well. You have yet to refute anything through citing your own facts.

I have provided you with a litany of information and you respond with an essential "no they don't" and went on to lie and provide a bunch of BS.

So bet it.

 

[irish_buffalo]

Yes it was moved to the ODA. That does not mean what you think it means no matter how often you repeat it.

It means that the CAFO is not held to the same standards as anyone else when it comes to water. Period.

 

[Guillotine]

You have yet to refute anything through citing your own facts.

That's hilarious.

 

[Smalls]

The "residual phosphorus" theory got me thinking, but it doesn't explain the blooms in the 60's-70's and the fact they went away for a few decades......or was there a different cause then and now?

Answering these questions lead me to a pretty logical conclusion.

1. Were there algal blooms in the 60's and 70's?

2. What was the cause of those blooms?

3. Did those blooms go away in the 80's and 90's?

4. What changed to make them go away?

5. Did the human population in the watershed remain steady or decrease from the 60's-70's until now?

6. Are there more farm animals in the watershed now?

7. Do more farm animals produce more waste now?

8. Did sanitation/treatment of human waste improve?

9. Did the blooms come back?

 

[eastisbest]

You guys act like chicken turds have some homing instinct to return to lake Erie.

200 years of dumping human chit directly in the lake does not matter? Did all that phosphorus miraculously evaporate or become inert?

And you switched to the diminuatives because you've given some superior argument? No you haven't.

Where were the blooms for those 200 years? If you're going to deny a causality with another cause, your other cause should at least have caused something.

You've been challenged. Answer with intelligence.

 

[cabezadecaballo]

The main problem with fertilizer runoff is agricultural. Good luck to officials solving that issue.

Sure, but why add to it ? Aesthetics and vanity are not worth the added burden on the ecosystem, that's for sure. Tax the f__k out of retail lawn chemicals and minimize their use use that way.

If you similarly punish commercial food operations - shape behaviors via taxation and fines and actually inspect to ensure compliance, things would improve. Same for municipal sewer systems.

Taxes gleaned from the industrial midwest built much of the south's infrastructure. For decades, states like Ohio were net "donors" for projects elsewhere. We should get federal money to upgrade our sewers.

Considering that Ohio is going to give the Orange Man another four in the Oval Office, maybe the Donald will deliver ?

 

[eastisbest]

No doubt that Ag and CAFO's are losing the publicity fight. People want emotional articles that quickly point the blame away from themselves and onto the "evil few". IB's links are great examples of this. They are filled with innuendo, emotional appealing are very few facts.

I brought up leaching because it is important when talking about water pollution.

I argued faulty lagoons and you and Guilitine counter with arguing "leaching." I know you know what that is. Say it with me, "strawman."

Lagoons:
I can tell you that I have closed and reclaimed old animal waste lagoons. After removing the waste, core sample are taken to determine the if Phosphorus had saturated the soil beneath the lagoon. Phosphorus had not moved beyond a half inch in 35 years of use. Lagoons properly built are effective.

I understand your concerns (and the general publics) about waste storage lagoons. However they are designed, built and monitored in such ways that make "leaking" or "leaching" highly improbable.

I believe your personal experience. I really do. I respect it. But it's anecdotal and it doesn't counter the information in the article I supplied you. It's highly improbable a nuke plant would have a leak. It's highly impr... well you know where I'm going with this. There are only a few nuke plants to be monitored. Look at that map. Would you trust our government to be able to monitor that? Would you trust an economically involved entity to self monitor that?

The effects of even one faulty lagoon containing such a high concentration of nutrients that could leak directly into the watershed is worth the fear and debate. It's fair to argue these storage facilities belong no where near the watershed or habitable communities. It's fair to argue they should not be spread, near a tributary. Like over and under fishing, maybe it needs time to recuperate?

Neither you nor Guillitine have been able to account for the lack of blooms over the 100s of years you're saying municipalities have been dumping phosphorous into the water supply, yet you stick to that as the blame for the blooms. I we all know you cannot confirm that none of those storage lagoons leak, as described in the article.

Something has changed to cause these massive blooms and that change correlates (yes I know the difference) with the rise of CAFOs. Either it sucks to be in the CAFO business, just bad luck or they are responsible. Your defense of the CAFO system isn't accounting for that change.

It's unfair for either you or Guillitine to be dismissive towards anyone arguing the other side when your own argument has been insufficient. Agree?

 

[cabezadecaballo]

.........

Where were the blooms for those 200 years? If you're going to deny a causality with another cause, your other cause should at least have caused something........

I sincerely wonder about some of the chemicals used to kill bugs and micro-organisms in our lawns and farm fields. Often times one organism will grow out of control in an environment in which competition is wiped out in the human body. Why not the ecosystem, too ?

Ever head down on a muffin and turn back because she was way too yeasty ? Antibiotics wipe out beneficial flora as well as the harmful ones, and without the balance of good bacteria candida can grow out of control. It's bad yogurt!!

I'm sure that the algae issue is a manifold problem, and there are many contributory issues.

 

[nwwarrior09]

Neither you nor Guillitine have been able to account for the lack of blooms over the 100s of years you're saying municipalities have been dumping phosphorous into the water supply, yet you stick to that as the blame for the blooms. I we all know you cannot confirm that none of those storage lagoons leak, as described in the article.

Something has changed to cause these massive blooms and that change correlates (yes I know the difference) with the rise of CAFOs. Either it sucks to be in the CAFO business, just bad luck or they are responsible. Your defense of the CAFO system isn't accounting for that change.

From a standpoint of logic it would seem to me that if it was mostly or entirely due to municipal dumping and the "legacy buildup" of phosphorus from generations ago, then the blooms should have consistently been out of control in the 50s and 60s when there'd already been "dumping" for 100-150 years and the municipalities were booming in the postwar years while assumptuously using waste management systems (probably overloaded due to population increase) and practices that were lesser than today. That doesn't appear to have been the case.

Perhaps there are other factors at play, but at a minimum regional CAFOs seem to have had bad luck with their emergence timing up with the emergence of the massive blooms.

 

[Stirred not Shaken]

Sure, but why add to it ? Aesthetics and vanity are not worth the added burden on the ecosystem, that's for sure. Tax the f__k out of retail lawn chemicals and minimize their use use that way.

If you similarly punish commercial food operations - shape behaviors via taxation and fines and actually inspect to ensure compliance, things would improve. Same for municipal sewer systems.

Taxes gleaned from the industrial midwest built much of the south's infrastructure. For decades, states like Ohio were net "donors" for projects elsewhere. We should get federal money to upgrade our sewers.

Considering that Ohio is going to give the Orange Man another four in the Oval Office, maybe the Donald will deliver ?

Typical liberal response increase taxes. Lawn care has a very minimum impact on algae bloom. If it was a major problem ( lawn care ) or even minor problem the libs in gov. and media would be saying so. These mega farms have a lot of influence esp. with the state house and at the federal level and if Trump wants to lose the farm vote yeah increase taxes on them. I live in farm country and the farmers are in a tough spot as are politicians, and these pols. have to make a tough choice take draconian measures on farm run off or try and control it as best they can, their is no easy answer otherwise it would have been done by now.

 

[irish_buffalo]

The "residual phosphorus" theory got me thinking, but it doesn't explain the blooms in the 60's-70's and the fact they went away for a few decades......or was there a different cause then and now?

Answering these questions lead me to a pretty logical conclusion.

1. Were there algal blooms in the 60's and 70's?

2. What was the cause of those blooms?

3. Did those blooms go away in the 80's and 90's?

4. What changed to make them go away?

5. Did the human population in the watershed remain steady or decrease from the 60's-70's until now?

6. Are there more farm animals in the watershed now?

7. Do more farm animals produce more waste now?

8. Did sanitation/treatment of human waste improve?

9. Did the blooms come back?

1). Been told there were not as much algal blooms but more so pollution dead zones. Regardless, the Clean Water Act of 1972 did a great job in helping Lake Erie return to health.

2). See one.

3). Yes, improvements in WWTP plants, industrial discharge, farming practices, etc. due directly to the Clean Water Act.

4). See three.

5). Decreased.

6). Yes

7). Yes

8). Yes

9). Yes

CAFO's are not held to the same EPA Clean Water Act standards as everyone else when Ohio placed them in control of the Ohio Department of Agriculture. It is a loophole of sorts. On top of that the ODA is an extremely friendly group to all things farming. These CAFO's are BIG AG. They are mega farms that are corporate owned. This is not your 1800's German family farm that so many of us think about when it comes to farming in Ohio. Big Ag has bought legislation to allow them to pollute. These corporate owned mega farms don't give a flying F about Lake Erie. Period.

We've had golf courses for years. We have had lawn fertilizer for years. We have had far worse WWTP's for years. There is one direct correlation here and that is the massive increase in CAFO's in the Maumee Watershed (EIB's map says it all). This is not just Lake Erie either. It is happening to bodies of water all over America for the exact same reason. Everyone knows it. Some try to BS around it because they are tied to CAFO's. Big Ag is untouchable.

 

[Guillotine]

Perhaps there are other factors at play, but at a minimum regional CAFOs seem to have had bad luck with their emergence timing up with the emergence of the massive blooms.

There are other factors. As I said earlier we've most likely reached a tipping point. Phosphorous doesn't just go away. It accumulates until it's at disproportionate levels...levels conducive to the proliferation of algae. I would imagine the improved water quality has helped. In the 60's and 70's the lake was a toilet. Nothing thrived. The zebra mussels invasion improved water clarity. Sunlight penetrates deeper and plant life has thrived in the last 20 years. Blue/green algae likes sunlight. The average temperature of the lake has risen. Algae likes that too. The lake is shallower. More and bigger boats agitate the bottom making all that phosphorous available. Same for the wind. I don't know that we've had stronger/longer wind events, but all things being equal, that's more agitation of a shallower pond.

I guess my question is, does anyone really believe if all CAFO's were eliminated tomorrow, the algae would stop blooming?

 

[irish_buffalo]

I guess my question is, does anyone really believe if all CAFO's were eliminated tomorrow, the algae would stop blooming?

Yes.

 

[Guillotine]

Yes.

That's sad.

 

[Indiandad]

I argued faulty lagoons and you and Guilitine counter with arguing "leaching." I know you know what that is. Say it with me, "strawman."

Leaching is how a lagoon would be faulty.

I don't know what else to tell you.

Lagoons are literally built into the ground. Pretty difficult for a hole to "break".

 

[Guillotine]

You also stated it is held in "earthen lagoons." No clay lining is impermeable and though there might be some absorbtion before it can hit a clean path to water table, I can see why many would be uncomfortable with the system.

If you're not talking about leaching, what are you talking about?

 

[Indiandad]

I argued faulty lagoons and you and Guilitine counter with arguing "leaching." I know you know what that is. Say it with me, "strawman."






I believe your personal experience. I really do. I respect it. But it's anecdotal and it doesn't counter the information in the article I supplied you. It's highly improbable a nuke plant would have a leak. It's highly impr... well you know where I'm going with this. There are only a few nuke plants to be monitored. Look at that map. Would you trust our government to be able to monitor that? Would you trust an economically involved entity to self monitor that?

The effects of even one faulty lagoon containing such a high concentration of nutrients that could leak directly into the watershed is worth the fear and debate. It's fair to argue these storage facilities belong no where near the watershed or habitable communities. It's fair to argue they should not be spread, near a tributary. Like over and under fishing, maybe it needs time to recuperate?

Neither you nor Guillitine have been able to account for the lack of blooms over the 100s of years you're saying municipalities have been dumping phosphorous into the water supply, yet you stick to that as the blame for the blooms. I we all know you cannot confirm that none of those storage lagoons leak, as described in the article.

Something has changed to cause these massive blooms and that change correlates (yes I know the difference) with the rise of CAFOs. Either it sucks to be in the CAFO business, just bad luck or they are responsible. Your defense of the CAFO system isn't accounting for that change.

It's unfair for either you or Guillitine to be dismissive towards anyone arguing the other side when your own argument has been insufficient. Agree?

No structure is ever fail proof. Anyone who tells you it is is lying.
The ODA was a very thorough job of inspecting and monitoring

There are other factors. As I said earlier we've most likely reached a tipping point. Phosphorous doesn't just go away. It accumulates until it's at disproportionate levels...levels conducive to the proliferation of algae. I would imagine the improved water quality has helped. In the 60's and 70's the lake was a toilet. Nothing thrived. The zebra mussels invasion improved water clarity. Sunlight penetrates deeper and plant life has thrived in the last 20 years. Blue/green algae likes sunlight. The average temperature of the lake has risen. Algae likes that too. The lake is shallower. More and bigger boats agitate the bottom making all that phosphorous available. Same for the wind. I don't know that we've had stronger/longer wind events, but all things being equal, that's more agitation of a shallower pond.

I guess my question is, does anyone really believe if all CAFO's were eliminated tomorrow, the algae would stop blooming?

CAFO's are highly regulated and monitored.

Small farms are not.

Why do away with highly regulated and monitored farms to be replaced with many smaller unregulated unmonitored farms? Why would anyone think that is a good idea?

 

[irish_buffalo]

Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality

Waste from agricultural livestock operations has been a long-standing concern with respect to contamination of water resources, particularly in terms of nutrient pollution. However, the recent growth of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) presents ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Oldie but goody here...

Lots of research and information.

 

[Indiandad]

The "residual phosphorus" theory got me thinking, but it doesn't explain the blooms in the 60's-70's and the fact they went away for a few decades......or was there a different cause then and now?

Answering these questions lead me to a pretty logical conclusion.

1. Were there algal blooms in the 60's and 70's?

2. What was the cause of those blooms?

3. Did those blooms go away in the 80's and 90's?

4. What changed to make them go away?

5. Did the human population in the watershed remain steady or decrease from the 60's-70's until now?

6. Are there more farm animals in the watershed now?

7. Do more farm animals produce more waste now?

8. Did sanitation/treatment of human waste improve?

9. Did the blooms come back?

1)There were very large algal blooms in the 60' and 70's.

2) Phosphorus

3) No. They have continued each year but vary in size.

4) They didn't go away. They merely changed in size.

5) The Toledo Metropolitan are has stayed roughly the same.

6) There are more.

7) On a per animal basis, No. Total waste produced has probably gone up some.

8) No. The municipalities surrounding Lake Erie discharge annually 4.5 billions to 9 billion gallons of raw sewage into the lake.

9) Blooms have been happening to varying degrees since to 60's at least.

 

[Indiandad]

Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality

Waste from agricultural livestock operations has been a long-standing concern with respect to contamination of water resources, particularly in terms of nutrient pollution. However, the recent growth of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) presents ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Oldie but goody here...

Lots of research and information.

Lol

Hardly a goody. Lots of suppositions but no scientific fact.

I especially like the part on how supposedly antibiotics pass thru an animal into its waste then is spread on the ground and somehow magically appears in the water system.

Sounds scary.
Scientifically not plausible.

 

[Indiandad]

[QUOTE="Gulliotine, post: 7356149, member: ]

I guess my question is, does anyone really believe if all CAFO's were eliminated tomorrow, the algae would stop blooming?
[/QUOTE]
Algal blooms were happening long before the first CAFO was ever built. It was being fed by phosphorus from human waste.

It's a lot easier to point the finger at your neighbor and say "you're the problem" than it is to clean up your own act. Literally.

 

[Indiandad]

Over the past 50 years it is estimated that as much as 450 Billion gallons of raw sewage has been dumped into Lake Erie from point source discharges of storm sewer overflow drains.

450 Billion gallons directly into the lake.

That's not the cause though. It must be the neighbor spreading manure on his field 100 miles away.

 

[irish_buffalo]

Not doubting anything you say but throw in some citation occasionally. It might help your cause.

 

[Indiandad]

Not doubting anything you say but throw in some citation occasionally. It might help your cause.

You could use Google.

 

[Indiandad]

So how to stop the algal blooms...
There is only one way to stop them and that is to remove the phosphorus laden silt built up on the floor of lake Erie.

To prevent the buildup from happening again you have to stop putting phosphorus into the lake. In all forms.

Filter strips and filter trains work very well at capturing eroded soil particulate. Regulating small farms the same as CAFO's would help greatly. Indiana already does this.

The big one though is the one no one wants to address. We must stop using our streams, creeks, rivers and lakes as a means to dispose of our sewage.

 

[Indiandad]

1). Been told there were not as much algal blooms but more so pollution dead zones. Regardless, the Clean Water Act of 1972 did a great job in helping Lake Erie return to health.

2). See one.

3). Yes, improvements in WWTP plants, industrial discharge, farming practices, etc. due directly to the Clean Water Act.

4). See three.

5). Decreased.

6). Yes

7). Yes

8). Yes

9). Yes

CAFO's are not held to the same EPA Clean Water Act standards as everyone else when Ohio placed them in control of the Ohio Department of Agriculture. It is a loophole of sorts. On top of that the ODA is an extremely friendly group to all things farming. These CAFO's are BIG AG. They are mega farms that are corporate owned. This is not your 1800's German family farm that so many of us think about when it comes to farming in Ohio. Big Ag has bought legislation to allow them to pollute. These corporate owned mega farms don't give a flying F about Lake Erie. Period.

We've had golf courses for years. We have had lawn fertilizer for years. We have had far worse WWTP's for years. There is one direct correlation here and that is the massive increase in CAFO's in the Maumee Watershed (EIB's map says it all). This is not just Lake Erie either. It is happening to bodies of water all over America for the exact same reason. Everyone knows it. Some try to BS around it because they are tied to CAFO's. Big Ag is untouchable.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 is a Federal law. It can not be overridden by a State regulatory agency. I'm curious as to where you got that from.

Most CAFO's are family owned. They usually are incorporated however. They are owned by people who have lived in their communities for generations. They care about the environment as much as anyone else.

EIB's map doesn't show CAFO's. It shows animal feeding operations. They aren't necessarily CAFO's. All CAFO's are animal feeding operations but not all animal feeding operations are CAFO's.

Algal blooms are happening in bodies of waters (fresh and saltwater) all over the country, Even in areas where no CAFO's are located. There are however large population centers that dump their sewage into the watershed.

I assume your last two lines are directed at me. For the record, I am not involved in Ag. I am not associated in any CAFO's. I do not in any way profit from agriculture. I have no horse in the race except I care about having a beautiful, healthy lake. The first step is recognizing the source of the problem. Denying the most obvious pollution source is asinine.

 

[irish_buffalo]

You need to read the articles I submit.

Questions remain over CAFO permits

Published by news@presspubli... on Mon, 07/29/2019 - 10:29am
By:
Larry Limpf
It’s been nearly eight years since three Wood County residents filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, requesting the agency withdraw Ohio’s authority over a permitting program for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which can house thousands of livestock or poultry.
The petitioners, Vickie Askins, her husband Larry, and Jack Firsdon, claim Ohio’s CAFO permitting program, as it is being administered, violates the federal Clean Water Act.
Among other challenges to the permitting process, they contend the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s program allows CAFOs to circumvent manure management regulations by simply selling or giving their manure to others for fertilizer. The result is vast amounts of CAFO-generated manure making its way to streams and waterways in the Lake Erie watershed, contributing to harmful algal blooms.
The federal EPA granted the Ohio EPA authorization to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in 1974 but state officials in 2006 requested permit-enforcement authority over CAFOs be transferred to the agriculture department.
According to U.S. EPA region 5, the transfer request lacked required data and the state submitted a revised request in 2015. But the region 5 office still hasn’t decided on the request.
In July 2018, Vickie Askins filed a complaint with the U.S. EPA’s Office of Inspector General and this past May the office issued a report saying the region 5 office has had sufficient time to reach a decision.
“EPA Region 5’s delay in timely addressing these…matters has created uncertainty for the state and regulated community,’ the IG report concludes.
The regional office responded it agreed with the report and plans to complete action on the state request and petition by March 2020.
Vickie Askins still has concerns. For one, the IG report states the region 5 office has decided to address the citizen petition after the regional office has resolved the transfer request.
“What I’m taking from this is they’re going to have the Ohio Department of Agriculture make the changes they have to make so their program complies with the Clean Water Act. Then, when they get all that done, they’re going to look at our petition. Our 200-page petition was all about the deficiencies in the ODA program,” she said. “So, for them to wait until after they’re done talking with the ODA before they even look at what we have is like a slap in the face to me. If they talk to the ODA and say fix this and this, to me that means they would have to go to the legislature and amend the Ohio Revised Code and get that all done before they do anything with our petition.”
According to a study by the Less=More Coalition, there were approximately 146 CAFOs located in the western Lake Erie watershed as recently as 2016 in Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.
Dina Pearce, a spokesperson for the Ohio EPA, said the agency is still responsible for issuing NPDES permits to facilities in Ohio, including animal feeding operations.
Ohio currently has about 30 animal feeding operations with NPDES permits. The permits are for five-year periods and can be renewed, she said.

 

[Indiandad]

You need to read the articles I submit.

Questions remain over CAFO permits

Published by news@presspubli... on Mon, 07/29/2019 - 10:29am
By:
Larry Limpf
It’s been nearly eight years since three Wood County residents filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, requesting the agency withdraw Ohio’s authority over a permitting program for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which can house thousands of livestock or poultry.
The petitioners, Vickie Askins, her husband Larry, and Jack Firsdon, claim Ohio’s CAFO permitting program, as it is being administered, violates the federal Clean Water Act.
Among other challenges to the permitting process, they contend the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s program allows CAFOs to circumvent manure management regulations by simply selling or giving their manure to others for fertilizer. The result is vast amounts of CAFO-generated manure making its way to streams and waterways in the Lake Erie watershed, contributing to harmful algal blooms.
The federal EPA granted the Ohio EPA authorization to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in 1974 but state officials in 2006 requested permit-enforcement authority over CAFOs be transferred to the agriculture department.
According to U.S. EPA region 5, the transfer request lacked required data and the state submitted a revised request in 2015. But the region 5 office still hasn’t decided on the request.
In July 2018, Vickie Askins filed a complaint with the U.S. EPA’s Office of Inspector General and this past May the office issued a report saying the region 5 office has had sufficient time to reach a decision.
“EPA Region 5’s delay in timely addressing these…matters has created uncertainty for the state and regulated community,’ the IG report concludes.
The regional office responded it agreed with the report and plans to complete action on the state request and petition by March 2020.
Vickie Askins still has concerns. For one, the IG report states the region 5 office has decided to address the citizen petition after the regional office has resolved the transfer request.
“What I’m taking from this is they’re going to have the Ohio Department of Agriculture make the changes they have to make so their program complies with the Clean Water Act. Then, when they get all that done, they’re going to look at our petition. Our 200-page petition was all about the deficiencies in the ODA program,” she said. “So, for them to wait until after they’re done talking with the ODA before they even look at what we have is like a slap in the face to me. If they talk to the ODA and say fix this and this, to me that means they would have to go to the legislature and amend the Ohio Revised Code and get that all done before they do anything with our petition.”
According to a study by the Less=More Coalition, there were approximately 146 CAFOs located in the western Lake Erie watershed as recently as 2016 in Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.
Dina Pearce, a spokesperson for the Ohio EPA, said the agency is still responsible for issuing NPDES permits to facilities in Ohio, including animal feeding operations.
Ohio currently has about 30 animal feeding operations with NPDES permits. The permits are for five-year periods and can be renewed, she said.

A federal Judge threw out the Askins original lawsuit saying "it was without merit".

Federal Court Finds Nothing Stinky About CAFO Permitting in Ohio | Thompson Hine

Just because they are suing again doesn't mean they are right.

 

[Indiandad]

You need to familiarize yourself with the terms and acronyms and how they pertain to the situation.
Animal Feeding Operation (AFO)= any operation that feeds animals for more than 45 days in a 12 month period where grass is not maintained during the normal growing season.This could be a 4H animal kept in a barn or hutch.

CAFO= Confined Animal Feeding Operation.
They can be a Small, Medium or Large CAFO depending on the number and type of animals. CAFO's must be permitted and are inspected and regulated.
They must obtain a Permit to Install (PTI) prior to constructing. a PTI is an approved plan to ensure that the operation can adequately handle the livestock housed, manure generated as well as insect and rodent control. It also addresses how precipitation will be handled during construction to prevent surface water discharges of muddy or contaminated water into waters of the State. Once that permit is approved, the operation can begin construction. During/After construction and prior to the first animal being placed, the operation is subject to inspection to verify that all facets of the facility have been built according to the PTI.
Once construction is complete and final inspection is approved then the CAFO can begin filling and must operate according to their Permit To Operate (PTO). A PTO is a comprehensive plan for the safe rearing of the animals, storage of the waste, control of rodents and insects, handling and disposal of any and all mortality, and the final disposal of the waste generated.
CAFO's unlike AFO are required to test the manure waste for nutrient levels as well as targeted fields prior to spread the waste. They must document that the field has suitable levels of nutrients to allow a manure application and that based on past yield history, they are applying the manure at a rate that does not exceed the planned crops ability to remove the nutrients in a single growing season. In the event that growing conditions (Drought typically) do not allow the crop to remove enough nutrients then the next years application rate must be adjusted or even not applied until the nutrient level is reduced.

As long as a CAFO successfully manages its waste disposal and no manure is discharged either intentionally or unintentionally into the Waters of the State they can continue to operate. Their PTO must be renewed every 5 years and can be revoked if a discharge happens.
Unintentional discharges can include runoff from a precipitation event after applying manure. This is why it is a violation to apply manure when precipitation is forecasted within 24 hours of application. It is also why incorporation of the manure is required within 24 hours of applying. CAFO's must maintain records of forecasted and actual weather of the dates of manure application.
Discharges can occur via natural drainage. Fields that have drainage tile (and are having manure applied) must plug the tiles with water tight balloons or have valves that are closed or secured. In the event that manure does discharge into a waterway the operator must notify the State immediately, cease applying manure immediately, Dam the waterway, and begin immediate cleanup including removal of contaminated water and silt. This process is extremely difficult and costly so it definitely behooves the operator to take all necessary precautions to prevent a discharge. Failing to notify the State of a discharge can result in massive fines and revoking of the PTO. Effectively shutting down the business. If a discharge happens and the State is notified and a proper cleanup is conducted the CAFO can continue to operate but is required to operate under a NPDES permit.

NPDES permits are regulated by the Federal EPA.
There are several hundred CAFO's in the state and less than 30 have NPDES permits. Only 7 are in the NWO Lake Erie watershed.

By comparison every Municipality in NWO has an NPDES permit.

CAFO's are highly regulated and monitored.

Municipalities are not.