Outlines role of county supervisors in CAFO construction permitting
~by Janice Harbaugh
The background: At a public hearing for Stumpf Finishers, LLC, held by the Greene County board of supervisors on May 11, individual board members stated they believed the Iowa Department of Natural Resources had scored the master matrix they had received for Stumpf. Some also stated they had no power to vote other than in favor of approval for the Stumpf application to construct a hog confinement.
One board member stated he believed the DNR was recommending that Greene County needed this hog confinement.
At the video conferenced hearing, 15 people spoke against approval of the application, citing falsified or inaccurate scores on the master matrix as well as other issues. The scores given to the supervisors were from Becky Sexton of Twin Lakes Environmental, LLC., a consulting firm in Rockwell City.
The scores board members were looking at were not from the DNR.
The final vote was four ayes from supervisors John Muir, Mick Burkett, Tom Contner, and Pete Bardole. The lone nay vote was cast by supervisor Dawn Rudolph.
Because some members of the board of supervisors seem confused as to their responsibilities and roles, Greene County News Online took a deeper look.
The Interview: This reporter contacted Alison Manz, senior environmental specialist with the DNR, located in Atlantic, on May 21. Manz responded in writing to questions asked and sent copies of two documents sent to counties that use the master matrix system of evaluation for applications to construct hog confinements.
By phone, Manz said the Greene County board of supervisors would have received the two documents outlining the procedures.
The documents, available online at www.iowadnr.gov environmental services division, are “Construction Permit Applications and The Master Matrix” and “Details of Scoring the Master Matrix.” Both are clearly and simply written with procedures listed.
Under “County Responsibilities:” 1)Document that an application has been received by sending the application and a receipt to DNR; 2) Provide public notice after DNR has sent the county notice that it has received the application; 3) Score the master matrix; 4) Visit the site; 5) Keep a copy of the application for public inspection; 6) Provide proof of publication; 7) Provide a public hearing (optional); 8) Make a recommendation; and 9) Submit to the DNR.
Several key points stand out, quoted from these documents:
“The county is required to score the master matrix claimed by the applicant to see if the claimed points appear acceptable.” It is clear the county should score the master matrix even though a paid consultant of the applicant might have also done so. Documents state, “Scoring the master matrix will take time and effort (on the part of the county.)”
“The county must submit its recommendation to either approve or disapprove the permit application. This recommendation is independent of the county’s master matrix scoring.” Other factors in addition to the matrix scores can enter into the county’s recommendation. The board is not powerless; neither are residents of the county in making the board aware of circumstances which can affect the board’s vote.
“Once all materials are received (from the county) the DNR begins reviewing the construction permit application.” This occurs after step 9. It is also clear the DNR does not make a recommendation to the county for approval or disapproval prior to the county submitting its recommendation to the DNR. There are also procedures for appeals.
This reporter submitted written questions to Manz and she responded in writing.
Question: Various supervisors have stated they have no power to dispute the master matrix scores given them by the consulting firm. Is this an accurate idea?
Manz: No, that would not be an accurate assessment.
Question: What is the role of a consulting firm hired by the applicant?
Manz: My understanding is that consultants assist the applicant with the paperwork. But, every consultant may have a different contract with the applicant outlining their role.
Question: Did you receive exhibits concerning specific master matrix scores attached to the board of supervisors report sent to you after the vote on May 11?
Manz: Yes, I did. The information was submitted to Cindy Garza, the DNR review engineer, who then provided the information to my office.
Question: Did you receive exhibits concerning specific master matrix scores from residents of Greene County after the May 11 public hearing?
Manz: Yes, I received a lot of public comments via email and via mail.
Question: If you can share the status of the Stumpf application for a construction permit, what is that status as of today (May 21)?
Manz: The permit is still under review. The applicant was notified that work to the existing grassed waterway needs to be completed before the permit is issued. If the permit is issued, a stipulation will be placed in the permit that the grassed waterways need to be maintained at all times to prevent them from reverting back to a water source.
