  |
 |
 |
|
| "The Dairyman's Number One Choice in Newspapers" | |||
| Serving Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona & Kansas | |||
|
|
|
|
|
| "The Dairyman's Number One Choice in Newspapers" | |||
| Serving Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona & Kansas | |||
| VOLUME XIII, NO. 10 |
OCTOBER 2004 |
|
|
|
|
Dutch cowboys “off the hook” in
bittersweet settlement with Waco |
|
| Dutch cowboys “off the hook” in bittersweet settlement with Waco | |
|
In a somewhat bittersweet settlement with the City of Waco, Steve and Paul Byl are breathing a little bit easier these days, now that they are officially “off the hook” and are free to pursue future plans that most likely will take them out of Erath County.
Dairying in Erath County since 1989, Steve and Paul negotiated their way out of their suit the day before a court-ordered mediation session in Dallas was held between Waco representatives and the dairies. Although the mediation session was considered a failure by most of those who attended, the Byls’ were already compelled to go on their own to the City of Waco and negotiate a settlement. “We were up to $70,000 or more in lawyer’s fees and we knew we had to do something,” Steve said. “We finally just went to Waco, laid our books on the table and said ‘now, show us what you want us to do.’” Surprisingly enough, Steve said, “it wasn’t near as bad as I thought it would be and the City tried to work with us on some of the issues. “For instance, we’re milking 700 cows but they didn’t know we have 900 acres of land. We need our manure to spread out over our 800 acres of coastal fields. So, they said we didn’t have to haul our manure off and they scratched that off the list.” Steve said this was one of 17 points that Waco listed as things they would like to see the dairies do in order to satisfy their demands. He said he and Paul tried to be honest and open with Waco and as a result, Waco slacked off a little. “But, a lot of the demands they’re asking for are already required by the TCEQ,” he said. Steve said the negotiation process was pretty simple and they felt what Waco was asking for was not worth fighting over. “We remember what happened to the Oostens--- and they lost everything. To stay in the lawsuit was costing a lot of money and I just don’t feel like losing my butt over it.” Steve said that settling with Waco was definitely a last resort. “But, we felt we didn’t have a choice in the matter if we wanted to protect our livelihood and families. The lawsuit was a drain on all of us emotionally and financially because we were getting no financial support to fight the suit and no reassurance that there’d be any help.” Steve said when TAD (Texas Association of Dairymen) first got involved, he and Paul were under the impression that TAD would help everyone fight the suit by obtaining financial support through the milk marketing agency. “For 8 months, nothing happened, and our attorney fees were mounting. My brother and I decided we didn’t need to depend on TAD or expensive attorneys. We went to Waco and settled the problem ourselves in two hours that took 8 months of listening to TAD and mounting attorney fees that wasn’t getting anything accomplished or done.” Steve said fighting the suit basically boiled down to one thing: “Money, and where do you get it to fight? Everyone was sitting around all worried and there was no assurance that any money was forthcoming. We kept hearing about it, but we never saw any of it. We wanted to stay in the group and fight but we also felt that it was like sending a soldier off to war without any bullets or ammunition.” Steve said their settlement was far from perfect and he and Paul were concerned about portions of the agreement. “As far as coming on my place, I have nothing to hide. I have no secrets---like a nuclear plant or something. I don’t really like it but I don’t care if they have to come on my land.” Steve pointed out that ideally, the United States is supposed to be the land of freedom and opportunity. “But, that’s not exactly true. The TCEQ already has access to your land so what difference does it make if Waco comes on it, too?” The Byls’ realize what’s at stake with Waco, but don’t see much difference from what they’ve already experienced with the state. Steve said the TCEQ is a problem within itself. “Dairymen don’t even have time to dairy with all the paperwork that’s required. If you don’t do it right, the mistakes will cost you. The TCEQ doesn’t look at your place. They just look at the book. I made a mistake in calculating my phosphorus and when they saw it, I got a “paper” violation which is minor, but those paper violations count and they cost a lot.” Steve said he hired a consultant to take over his paperwork as most dairymen do, “but, that’s not bullet proof, either.” He said dairymen are still ultimately responsible for any errors and “you’re the one they come after.” Overall frustration played a major role in the Byls’ decision. “It’s very obvious, after speaking with Waco, that they don’t want this area to grow. We had 228 dairies 15 years ago and now we’ve got about 100. They’re not compassionate about the dairies and they just don’t want any more dairies here.”. Steve said the dairies being sued were picked randomly by the City of Waco but the common factor among all them were soil violations cited by the TCEQ. “The City started out suing 10 dairies, then added four, and they may pick more. That’s very scary. “The City informed us they would continue to do their flyovers after a heavy rain. They will also do everything they can to oppose new dairy growth. We’re just sick and tired of living in this watershed and worrying about it all the time. The appraisal value on our dairy (not the land) has dropped by 50%. It’s impossible to sell it and we’re not looking for any more headaches.” Steve said selling or leasing the dairy are two major concerns in the settlement. “If we sell the dairy site, which only includes 10 acres, it will be under the supervision and jurisdiction of Waco according to the agreement. I don’t think anyone would want to buy into that. But, we can bulldoze the dairy and then it’d be gone and everything would be okay. Our land is still worth something.” Steve said the Waco agreement stipulates that all demands must be met. “It’s like anything else. If you mess up, somebody’s going to take action.” He made it clear the one thing he did not agree to in all this is that he would have to leave Erath County and never come back. “We intend to stay here for as long as we can and we’ll put up with what we settled on in order to keep operating.” Steve said the settlement involved a critical process of weighing-out the risks involved. “We had to decide if losing everything by trying to stay in the lawsuit was worth it. We either had to listen to ourselves, or listen to others, and we didn’t like what the others were saying because nothing was getting done.” Steve said both he and Paul and their families enjoy living in Erath County but their hopes for future expansion have been dashed by the City of Waco and their only option is to eventually go elsewhere. “I think the worst is yet to come. Everything is just too tense, here,” Steve said. Fortunately, the Byls’ have an alternative plan in mind for the future that’s been in the works for awhile. Steve said they had expected all along that the Bosque River problems and Waco would get worse each year. “About five years ago, we saw what was coming and we knew we better prepare for something else,” he said. As a result, the Byls’ bought 1500 acres in Utah permitted for 5,000 head. “We’ll eventually dairy there but I don’t know exactly when. The Byl brothers are natives of the Netherlands. Between the two brothers, they have nine children and have a strong family relationship. Steve said when he first came to the US, he went to Oregon where he worked for 13 years. He moved to Erath County with nothing except a pocketful of dreams and the hope that it would allow him the opportunity to start his own dairy. Paul soon joined him at their present location. After meeting with Waco officials, Steve and Paul were asked if the agreement was something they could live with. “Yep,” Steve said. “It’s a piece of cake. “It’s better than losing everything,” he added. |
|
|
<<Back to the TOP>> |
|
| TCEQ reviews renewals; next step is to enforce new rules | |
|
Dairy producers should be aware that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is currently working on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) renewal applications for general or individual permits. The renewals must be technically and administratively completed by Tues., Oct. 26, 2004. If a producer is considered a CAFO by the TCEQ and is located in either of the impaired segments of the Bosque River watershed, he is required to obtain an individual permit. Producers are still operating under Subchapter B until renewal applications are approved. At that time, producers will be subject to the new TCEQ rules that became effective July 2004. One of the major new rules requires that CAFO operators must operate and maintain a margin of safety (MOS) in their Retention Control Structure (RCS) to contain the volume of runoff and direct precipitation from the 25-year, 10-day rainfall event or what is necessary to prevent overflow. The MOS must be evaluated using the Soil Plant Air and Water (SPAW) Field and Pond Hydrology Tool and be certified by a Texas licensed professional engineer. A dairy CAFO is only authorized to discharge from a properly operated and maintained RCS when the volume of the rainfall runoff and direct precipitation exceeds the volume for the MOS. If construction of new or modified RCS is necessary, a permit or other authorization must specify a schedule for compliance. Dairy operators must install and maintain a permanent pond marker in the RCS visible from the top of the levee to show the volume for the MOS and one-foot increments beginning from the predetermined minimum treatment volume of the RCS to the top of the embankment or spillway. Dairy operators must implement an RCS management plan incorporating the MOS developed by a licensed Texas professional engineer. The management plan must become part of the pollution prevention plan (PPP) to include an end of month target level for the RCS marker level. It must include RCS management controls appropriate for the CAFO and methods and procedures for implementing such controls; proper operation and maintenance of the RCS; appropriateness and priorities of any controls reflecting the identified sources of pollutants at the facility; a stage/storage table for each RCS with minimum depth increments of one-foot--including the storage volume provided at each depth, the planned end of month storage volume anticipated for each RCS for each month of the year and the corresponding operating depth expected at the end of each month of the year, based on the design assumptions. Dairy operators must monitor and record wastewater levels daily in the RCS. A log should be kept in the PPP documenting the daily level. If the RCS water level exceeds the expected end of the month depth, operators must document why in the PPP. When a spill is detected, it must be reported to the TCEQ office in Stephenville within one hour of detection instead of within the former 24 hour period. If a discharge occurs, the TCEQ has the option to require an automatic cutoff device. If the discharge occurs while dewatering to keep the RCS from overflowing, a sample must be taken and the Stephenville office notified. The Stephenville TCEQ office must be notifed 10 days before annual soil samples are taken. Additional sampling done with 60 days of the annual soil sampling must also be reported. Test results above 200 ppm phosphorus that do not decrease the next year will be subject to enforcement. Soil samplings must be taken for different types of soil with each land management unit (LMU) each year. Notice must be sent to the Stephenville TCEQ, 10 days prior to annual soil sampling. Soil testing results must be reported within 60 days of sampling each year. Any soil test report with more than 200 ppp requires an updated Nutrient Utilization Plan (NUP) be submitted to the TCEQ. Any soil test result that shows a field above 200 ppm that does not show a lower reading the following year is subject to enforcement. Spreading or irrigation of manure is not allowed between midnight and 4 a.m. Dairy operators must provide for management and disposal of waste beneficially used outside of the watershed; disposed in landfills outside the watershed, delivered to a composting facility approved by the executive director; or for another beneficial use approved by the executive director; or applied in other ways. Third party disposals must be added to the PPP with the landowner’s name, address, date of removal, location, and applied tonnage to be submitted to the Stephenville TCEQ office on a quarterly basis. A disposal agreement must be in the PPP between the producer and the off-site landowner. Pre and annual soil sampling is also required on third party application fields. Application to fields testing higher than 200 ppm is forbidden. Enforcement is responsible by the permit holder. Five years of records have to be kept in the PPP. Weekly inspections of berms, RCSs, and equipment used the previous week have to be recorded. Any problem must be documented and repaired within 30 days. Actual as opposed to estimated crop yields are required. CAFO operators are required to keep animal mortality management records. Animals are not allowed to be disposed of in the RCSs. An annual report must be submitted by Feb. 15 each year to include: number and type of cattle in pens; estimated total manure and wastewater generated; total manure and wastewater land applied; total manure and wastewater transferred to third party sites during previous year; total number of acres, on the farm and third party used for the application of waste during the previous year; summary of the previous year’s discharges; a copy of the initial soil sample for each LMU; soil test results; and groundwater monitoring reports, if required. Sludge is to be removed every 6 years at a minimum. Ten days notice to the TCEQ is required regardless of how the RCS is cleaned. Notice is required at the Stephenville office within 5 days after completion of clean out. Buffers may be required where TCEQ inspectors feel topography or soil types are relevant. A rain gauge capable of holding the design rainfall event must be on the farm. Weather conditions must be documented the day before and the day of any irrigation or manure application noted in the PPP. |
|
|
<<Back to the TOP>> |
|
| Family enjoys the “good life” but unsure what future will bring | |
|
The children scamper about the dairy, running, laughing, and looking around at nothing in particular but picking up whatever objects on the ground catches their eyes. These three lively and gorgeous little girls, Natalie, 5, Nicole 3, and 15-month-old Anna, know at an early age about the good life. They're happy, content to frolic in the sun and breeze, and their parents have made it all possible. "It's the quality of life that we want," said Johan Koke and his wife, Sonya, the proud parents of these three joyous youngsters. As they look at the girls playing, Sonya smiles and so does Johan, but suddenly he draws his eyebrows together in a slight frown, meaning there's something not quite as perfect as it may seem. "We like the way our life is here," Johan said. "But, we worry about what's going to happen and sometimes feel that we're going to be forced to live somewhere else." Obviously very aware of the stressful situation Erath County and Bosque River dairies are in caused by lawsuits from the City of Waco, John and Sonya, like many other dairy families, are concerned about their future. "We've looked at other areas in Texas, " Johan said, "but, we don't want to move." Sonya agrees and although they both realize that their future is somewhat unsteady, they are living their lives day-by-day, operating as normal as possible. Johan, a native of the Netherlands and Sonya, a native of San Jose, California, met in the Netherlands while she was living there. They married in 1995 and Johan's first dairying job in the United States was at Sulphur Springs. After a couple of years there, he moved on to Blanket where he operated a dairy for five years. Last year, he began operating two leased dairies in Erath County. One dairy, familiarly known as "Beyers' Blue Barn" is located on Pigeon Road and Hwy. 219. Another barn, referred to as "Blue Jay Barn" is owned by J.C. Moon, some fifteen miles away at School Hill. "It would be wonderful if we could milk our cows in one place," Johan said. He milks 500 at the Blue Barn and another 400 at School Hill. "We've looked for the last few years but haven't found the right spot yet." But, he points out, that the continuous fear of getting sued is always on the horizon and even if the "right spot" comes up, he's not so sure what they would do. The Kokes' said they've been all over West Texas and considered other areas for dairying, but are not satisfied with what they've found. "I'm one of the ones who could pick up and leave because I lease my barns," Johan said. "But, a lot of people can't do that and I feel very sorry for them and the ones getting sued. Look at all those attorney fees they're having to pay." Since moving to Erath County, the Kokes' have had a good life and they'd like to see it continue as it has. They've made many friends and are involved in both church and school functions. Ultimately, they'd like to see their daughters grow up and enjoy the quality of life they've been able to provide for them so far. "We're just hoping things will settle down in Erath County." |
|
|
<<Back to the TOP>> |
|
| For Your Information: How the Electoral College works | |
|
Every four years when the presidential election rolls around, proponents of doing away with the Electoral College begin to make their arguments known. For our reader’s information, we have printed how the Electoral College works. Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number its U.S. Representatives which may change each decade according to the size of each state's population as determined by the census. The political parties (or independent candidates) in each state submit to the state's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the state's electoral vote. Usually the major political parties select these individuals either in their state party conventions or through appointment by their state party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs. Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. After their caucuses (assembly, gathering) and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual state laws.) The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each state's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot. On the Tuesday, following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each state cast their ballots for the party slate of electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual electors on each slate.) Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the state becomes that state's electors --so that--in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a state wins all the electors of that state. (The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district). On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established by federal law) each state's electors meet in their respective state capitals and cast their electoral votes: one for president and one for vice president. In order to prevent electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home state, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their state (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different states). The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each state to the president of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of Congress. The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total) is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president. In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each state casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the states being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office. At noon on Jan. 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office. |
|
|
<<Back to the TOP>> |
|
| Colorado may split its 9 electoral votes | |
|
In the latest effort to change the way Americans elect their president, the state of Colorado may be first to divide its electoral votes for president according to the popular vote. The current ballot initiative in Colorado would take effect for this year's election if approved by voters in November. As it stands, the current Electoral College system can result in a president losing the popular vote but winning the majority of electoral votes, just as it did in the 2000 election. Democrat Al Gore won the nationwide popular election by 540 to 520 votes. Republican George W. Bush won the Electoral College vote, 271-266 to win the presidency. There are 538 total electoral votes and the Constitution requires that a candidate win a majority of the electoral votes to be elected with 270 necessary to win; otherwise the outcome is decided by the House of Representatives. If Colorado had divided its electoral votes in 2000, when it had eight votes,(now 9), it could have changed the outcome of the election. Colorado would have gone 5-3 for Bush instead of 8-0. That would have been enough to tip the Electoral College balance in Gore's favor, 269-268, one shy of victory. The Constitution allows for state legislatures to decide how their state's electors are chosen. Most states, including Colorado, have a winner-take-all system. But Colorado supporters argue that a shift to proportional allocations would more fairly represent voters and would encourage more citizens to vote. Opponents contend that a divided electoral vote would usually result in a 5-4 outcome, making Colorado irrelevant in presidential elections. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, permit their electoral votes to be divided. They award two electoral votes to the winning candidate statewide and the rest to the winner in each congressional district (two in Maine, three in Nebraska). Maine adopted this system in 1972 and Nebraska in 1991. |
|
|
<<Back to the TOP>> |
|
| Another year, another great TDR party | |
|
The Texas Dairy Review (TDR) Appreciation Party on Thurs., Sept. 16, succeeded in hosting more than 100 people throughout the evening. Dairymen, exhibitors and friends of TDR showed up to mix, mingle, eat, and dance the night away. The party started about 6 p.m. and lasted "til the cows came home." Joe Anselmi, sales representative for Holt Cat, Ft. Worth, has been coming to the Stephenville area for 15 years and to the TDR party since it first began, 8 years ago Anselmi said he enjoys seeing his dairy customers, other exhibitors, and the hospitality that’s provided by TDR. Thanks Joe. Hope to see you next year! Although this year's party didn't host as many exhibitors as usual because of a decline in participants at the annual Ag Expo, TDR made up for in dairymen and dairy friends. Some producers and their wives involved in the Waco vs. Bosque River dairies were unable to attend because of a scheduled mediation session that took place in Dallas the next morning. They all needed their wits about them to sit through a long drawn out session with Waco! These producers were missed and we hope they can attend next year's event. After eating at the delicious buffet that served a variety of home cooked dishes, things began to rock about 9:30 p.m. as people flooded onto the dance floor. Everything from country western music to rap seemed to touch on everybody's individual preference. Those who were brave enough to fathom the dance floor toward the evening's end, twisted, turned, and gyrated to the rhythmic beat while others took pleasure in just watching. I would especially like to thank The Pub and their crew for the great food and service. A special thanks goes to owner Charles Elliott for helping to make this year's party another success. Until next year, thanks to all that came and for those who didn't, please join us next year. Sherry Webb, TDR publisher |
|
|
<<Back to the TOP>> |
|
|
|
|
The Texas Dairy Review
Best viewed with MS
Internet Explorer 6.0 or Netscape 7.0 |
